Findings Of Fact At all times materiel hereto petitioners were inmates et Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) and were subject to discipline for failure to obey orders. Piccirillo was disciplined for failure to comply with an order to report to the infirmary or sick call. Piccirillo was aware that his name was posted on the bulletin board directing him to report to the medical department and et the time specified he failed to so report, was disciplined, and he lost gain time. A doctor visits LCI twice per week and inmates with medical problems can be seen by the doctor on these days. No patient is required to undergo medical treatment for minor ills if he so elects. Because of the limited time a doctor is available to LCI it is necessary that those inmates so designated see the doctor at the scheduled time. Inmates who do not understand an order may request clarification. If the inmate cannot read he is not punished for failure to obey written orders. Prior to disciplinary action being taken against an inmate for disobedience of orders, the disciplinary report is investigated and, after the investigator finds the charge to be true, discipline may be administered. Additionally, the inmate has a grievence procedure he may follow after the investigator recommends disciplinary action be taken. Occasionally, inmates are given orders by correctional officers which are unlawful. The inmate may obey the order and say nothing, he may obey the order and file a grievance, or he may refuse to obey he order and successfully defend the disciplinary report for failure to obey the order. It is not an offense for an inmate to refuse to obey an unlawful order.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on September 12, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. In the Petition Rule 33-3.00125, Florida Administrative Code, and I.O.P. #P2-89.10 were challenged. The Challenged Rule is titled "Inmate Telephone Use." The Challenged Rule sets forth the "minimum telephone privileges that shall be granted inmates. . . ." The I.O.P. apparently deals with the same general subject as the Challenged Rule. The Petition includes the use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 4, Affected Interest of the Petitioner, Second Amended Petition, provides the following: 4. That the (Petitioner) is affected by the Agancy [sic] promulgation of 33-3.00125 et. seq. that materially fail to follow the applicable rulemaking procedure setforth [sic] in 120.54. And, establish adequate standards for the Agency decision making as needed June 6th, 1990, August 13th, 1990 that exceed it [sic] grant of authority and fail [sic] to include the requirements of (consistancy) [sic] in delegating to I.O.P. P2-89.10 as 33-1.007(1), (3), (4) mandate and the unbridle [sic] discretion exercised by the Agency to deny (telephonic communication) needed for judicial reason [sic] as requirements of the court in Case # 90- 2968-23 Horton v. Florida Federal S.B. as not being available for judicial needs. [Emphasis in original]. This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition, the First Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition. Although it contains some "legalize", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of several employees of the Respondent relating to several alleged incidents involving attempts by the Petitioner to use a telephone. In the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition, paragraphs 13-20 pertain to an incident which allegedly occurred in December, 1989, paragraphs 21-42 pertain to an incident which allegedly occurred in May and/or August, 1990, paragraphs 43A-48A pertain to an incident which allegedly occurred in August, 1989, and paragraphs 52A-59A pertain to an incident which allegedly occurred in January, 1991. These events are further referred to in other portions of the Petition and throughout the First and Second Amended Petitions. Paragraph 24, Statement of the Facts, of the First Amended Petition is fairly typical of the allegations concerning specific actions complained of by the Petitioner: 24 That the (Petitioner) has repeatively [sic] been subjected to the (practices) arbitrary, capriociously [sic], exercise pursuant to 33-3.00125 et. seq. F.A.C. as by Florida State prison administrators as T.L. Barton, L.E. Turner, P.C. Decker, and dates of July 23rd, 1988; June 5th, 1990, August 13th, 1989 and as setforth [sic] herein; [Emphasis in original]. The alleged incidents complained of by the Petitioner have allegedly been the subject of unsuccessful grievance proceedings. Having failed to obtain a favorable response to his grievances, the Petitioner is seeking through this process to have the particular incidents reviewed. The Petitioner's allegations concerning the alleged incidents involving his attempts to obtain use of the telephone are not merely allegations intended to prove the Petitioner's standing to institute this proceeding. The Petitioner is complaining about, and seeking review of, actions of the Respondent in denying him the use of a telephone on the dates raised by the Petitioner in his Petition and his First and Second Amended Petitions. 9 The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rule and the I.O.P. See paragraphs 6, 11-12, 17, 20, 44A, 50A and 60A of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition. The Petitioner also mentions constitutional provisions in numerous other parts of the Petition, the First Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rule or the I.O.P. is unconstitutional. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the specific requirements or provisions of the Challenged Rule and the I.O.P. are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition, the First Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition. On November 18, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On December 6, 1991, a pleading titled "Petitioner [sic] Amended Petition Pursuant to Order Issued Nov. 18th 1991 According [sic] Opportunity to Amend" was filed by the Petitioner. The First Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. The First Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the First Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule and the I.O.P. are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On December 9, 1991, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered dismissing the First Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders. On December 12, 1991, the Petitioner filed a document titled Petitioner's Motion to File a Second and Final Amendment" and a Second Amended Petition. The Second Amended Petition does nothing to correct the deficiencies of the Petition or the First Amended Petition. The motion to file the Second Amended Petition was denied by Order entered December 18, 1991.
The Issue Whether Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact A. Standing. The Petitioner, Peter B. Dolinger, is not incarcerated by the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is, therefore, not subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner is an independent paralegal who owns and operates a sole proprietorship specializing in prisoner related issues. The intended scope of the Petitioner's business is to include research and pleading preparation for licensed members of the Florida Bar; agency representation before state agencies, in a qualified non-attorney representative status. The Petitioner, while representing an inmate in an unrelated administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Archie White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92-2392RXP, sought the release of the inmate's records from the Respondent. The request was denied by the Respondent pursuant to Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Archie D. White v. Parole and Probation Commission, DOAH Case No. 92- 2392RXP, is no longer pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Final Order was entered in that case in June, 1992. The Respondent. The Respondent is the state agency required to adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (9) When it is reasonably believed that a party may divulge information contained in the files of the department to an offender, the department shall restrict release of any information to that party. The Petitioner has alleged that Rule 33-6.006(9), Florida Administrative Code, "facially fails to establish an adeqaute [sic] standard for agency decisions. In other words, a person of common intelligence may imply the utilization of a 'reasonable' etst [sic] or standard thstb [sic] differs in totality from thst [sic] of another, most notably in the absence of definition, guidelines or policy on the standard to be applied."
The Issue The issue is whether respondent’s law enforcement certification should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on March 21, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, David G. Delisle, is a certified correctional officer, having been issued Correctional Certificate No. 67615 on August 31, 1992, by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission). When the relevant events herein occurred, respondent was employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office as a correctional officer at the Duval County Pre-Trial Detention Facility (detention facility). In an administrative complaint filed on March 21, 1996, the Commission charged that (a) on May 30, 1995, respondent “engage(d) in an unprofessional relationship with an inmate of said facility, under his supervision;” (b) on May 30, 1995, respondent unlawfully “receive from an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: cigarettes and/or rolling paper;” (c) on May 30, 1995, respondent unlawfully “(gave) to an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: cigarettes and/or rolling tobacco;” (d) on June 17, 1995, respondent engaged in “an unprofessional relationship with an inmate of said facility, under his supervision;” and (e) on June 17, 1995, respondent “(gave) to an inmate . . . an article or thing declared to be contraband, to wit: food.” Respondent disputed these allegations and initiated this proceeding. At final hearing, petitioner voluntarily dismissed item (c). During respondent’s tenure as a correctional officer at the detention facility in 1995, James M. Bonner and James Barbour were inmates under his supervision. In May of 1995, respondent approached inmates Bonner and Barbour and offered them tobacco products, including rolling paper, and other considerations if they would “beat up” certain inmates, including one Max Harrison, who were “causing trouble,” for respondent. The purpose of such action was to cause those inmates to transfer out of the cellblock thereby relieving respondent of having to deal with them. In the case of inmate Max Herring, respondent wanted Henning to leave the cellblock because he was allegedly a homosexual. Bonner and Barbour agreed to beat up Herring and other unidentified inmates. On June 19, 1995, Bonner, Barbour and several other inmates, tied inmate Herring to a bed with sheets and began striking him with “flip-flops” and shower shoes. Herring suffered abrasions and bruises on his body. Bonner confirmed that, at the request of respondent, several other inmates, none of whom were identified, were also beaten. In return for these favors, respondent provided inmates Bonner and Barbour with extra portions of jail food, extra food brought into the facility from outside establishments, magazines, cigarettes, rolling paper, and radio privileges. Although not specifically identified at hearing, certain "regulations" of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office prohibit a correctional officer from furnishing such goods and services to inmates, and the introduction of illegal contraband into a jail violates state law. On at least one occasion, respondent received tobacco products and rolling paper from Bonner to give to other inmates. This also violated an unidentified facility rule as well as state law.
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 determining that respondent has failed to maintain good moral character and required by state law and that his law enforcement certificate be revoked.DONE AND ENTERED this 24th date of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission 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 Mark P. Brewer, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. David G. Delisle 5350 Arlington Expressway, No. 3902 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether a contract exists for the lease of office space in Shalimar, Florida, between the Department of Corrections (DOC) and International Investment Counsel, Inc. (IIC).
Findings Of Fact On or about May 18, 1998, DOC issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Lease No. 700:0792, Shalimar Probation and Parole Office (the Lease). IIC, DOC’s current landlord for the Shalimar Probation and Parole Office, and another bidder, Bonafied Business Associates, Inc. (Bonafied), timely filed responses to the RFP. DOC opened and initially determined both proposals to be responsive to the RFP. Following evaluation of the bids by an evaluation committee, DOC posted its decision to award the lease to IIC. Bonafied timely filed a notice of protest. After Bonafied filed its notice of protest, Bonafied met with DOC and pointed out that IIC’s proposal did not clearly specify 40 exclusive parking spaces required by the RFP. Before the expiration of the 10-day period within which Bonafied was required by statute to file its formal written protest, DOC informally notified Bonafied that it intended to withdraw its award to IIC and repost its intent to award the lease to Bonafied. For logistical reasons, DOC did not communicate to IIC its intent to withdraw its award of the lease on or before July 17, 1998, the deadline for Bonafied to file its formal written protest. Notwithstanding that failure of notice to IIC of DOC’s intent to withdraw the lease award, Bonafied failed to perfect its protest and file a formal written protest by the deadline of July 17, 1998, as required by Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, Bonafied rented the office space offered in its bid to another tenant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered directing Department of Corrections to execute a lease with IIC for the Shalimar Probation and Parole Office consistent with the contract now in force between IIC and the DOC. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 23rd day of November, 1998. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Scott E. Clodfelter, Esquire Obed Dorceus, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 David Theriaque, Esquire 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2646 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harvey Jackson, in an inmate at UCI and has been at all times pertinent hereto. During the month of September, 1986, consistent with the rules of DOC, Jackson had a list of individuals on file who he desired to be allowed to visit him at the institution. These included members of his family and his fiancee, Ms. Ann Alexander. On September 22, 1986, Ms. Alexander came to visit Jackson at UCI. According to the routine procedure followed for the preparation of visitors' entrance into the Visitor's Park area, Ms. Alexander's purse was searched and she was subject to a pat search prior to being allowed into the secure area. During the search, it was determined she had $50.00 in U.S. currency in her possession and she was permitted to take that money into the Visitor's Park, leaving her purse at the waiting area. While Jackson and Ms. Alexander were together in the Visitor's Park, she purchased two cartons of cigarettes at the canteen and two orange drinks. The cartons of cigarettes were $12.00 each and the drinks were 35 each. Therefore, she spent approximately $24.70 of the $50.00 she brought in. Because she did not have a purse, she claimed later, upon questioning, that she put the change in the brown paper bag she got with the drinks and when she disposed of the bag in a trash can, inadvertently threw out the money as well. When she left the Visitor's Park area, she was subject again to a pat search and requested to indicate how much money she had. At that time, it was determined she had only $3.00 in her possession. According to corrections personnel who interviewed her, she gave several different stories as to what happened to the money she could not account for. Though both Ms. Alexander and Jackson stated she bought him two cartons of cigarettes, when he was searched prior to leaving the Visitor's Park, he had only one carton with him. The strip search conducted of him at that time also failed to reveal any money in his possession. Ms. Alexander was asked to go back into the Visitor's Park and look through the trash cans to try to find the money, and was accompanied by a guard. Because of the heat, however, it was an odious task and she admits her search of six or seven cans was not thorough. Unfortunately, she was unable to locate the money. As a result of this missing money, an incident report, (IR) was prepared. Ms. Alexander was not detained but was orally informed that her visiting privileges might be suspended and Jackson was allowed to return to his quarters. The IR merely outlined the information cited above but did not draw any conclusions as to what happened to the money. Mr. Davis, the corrections supervisor who was in charge of the corrections shift, concluded that Ms. Alexander disregarded the department's rules and regulations and recommended that her visiting privileges be revoked for an indefinite period. This IR was processed through channels to Mr. Cunningham, the Classification Supervisor, who under the provisions of Section 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., had the authority, in the absence of the Superintendent, to approve the suspension. He did so, and made sure that the Superintendent was informed. Thereafter, on September 29, 1986, Mr. K. W. Snow, who worked for Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, sent a letter to Ms. Alexander at her home address on file at the institution, indicating that her visiting privileges were suspended indefinitely beginning that date and would be reinstated on October 31, 1986, one month later. Notwithstanding that inconsistency regarding the length of the suspension, the practice at UCI, in the case of indefinite suspensions, is to reconsider the suspension on receipt of a request for reinstatement. In the case of a suspension for a definite term, they will reinstate upon request at the end of the suspension period. On the afternoon of September 26, 1986, several days prior to the dispatch of the suspension letter to Ms. Alexander, inmate Jackson was called to Mr. Snow's office where he was told that Ms. Alexander's visiting privileges were to be suspended for 30 days. At that time, he was advised that the basis for the suspension was her inability to account for the money she brought into the Visitor's Park on September 22. Though he requested a copy of the IR at that time, Jackson was not given a copy of it until in response to a discovery request after the filing of the rule challenge petition. Jackson was not advised of any opportunity either he or Ms. Alexander might have for a hearing on the matter prior to the suspension, or any appeal rights. Thereafter, Jackson wrote to Mr. Snow asking that he be notified of the suspension in writing, but this request was denied. The September 29, 1986 letter was not received by Ms. Alexander but was returned undelivered because of an erroneous address. On October 1, 1986, however, she wrote to Mr. Cunningham, having been advised by Jackson of the suspension, and the address on her stationery was used to again send her a letter of notification. This second letter was not returned. In her letter, Ms. Alexander explained her reasons for taking so much money into the Visitor's Park, and what she had done with a part of it. She also outlined her efforts to find the extra money. These explanations were not credited by the institution officials, however. Ms. Alexander's suspension has had a bad effect on Jackson, he claims. He felt frustrated and considered that his ability to be heard by the authorities was unnecessarily thwarted. He is of the opinion that the suspension was unfair because neither he nor his fiancee had broken any rules, and neither of them was given any opportunity to explain to the decision maker what had happened other than in writing and after the action was taken. As a result of the suspension, which has now expired, he missed two separate visits from his fiancee. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Alexander's suspension did not place any limits on visits by the other 7 or 8 people on his visitor's list. This suspension action has been utilized frequently as to other visitors as well as Ms. Alexander. Ms. Decker, for example, on September 29, 1986, was notified of the suspension of her visiting privileges on the basis that she had allegedly written a threatening letter to an official at the institution. She found out about her suspension through a phone call from her inmate fiancee. Neither she nor he, initially, was told of the reason for her suspension, and she was given no opportunity to rebut the allegations against her prior to the suspension action. Subsequent to the suspension, she was able to clarify the situation and her visiting privileges have been reinstated, albeit on less convenient days than she had previously. She believes this change in days was intended as punishment, but there is no evidence of this. Ms. Decker denies ever having been told that she could only spend $25.00 in the canteen as is alleged in Ms. Alexander's letter. In fact, there is no rule or policy limiting the amount that visitors may spend in the canteen nor is there a rule or policy which limits inmates to no more than one carton of cigarettes at a time. Mr. Jackson complains of the fact that neither he nor Ms. Alexander was afforded a hearing prior to the imposition of the suspension. There is no provision in the rule for a hearing prior to suspension in this type of case. This suspension was not intended as punishment for improper behavior by Jackson, but more a means of correcting an unauthorized situation and avoiding a security problem. Officials at UCI interpret the provisions of paragraph 33-5.007(5), F.A.C., as permitting the removal of a visitor from the visiting list for criminal activity, for a serious rule violation, for continuous infractions of visiting procedures, for security breaches, or a combination of those. While the instant situation is not considered to be criminal activity, a serious rule violation, or a continuing infraction, it is considered to be a security breach and it was to correct this situation that the institution officials suspended Ms. Alexander. Final action on the issue of a suspension of visiting privileges based on the IR is, by the rule, to be taken by the Superintendent, or the Assistant Superintendent, Classification Supervisor, or the next senior officer present in the chain of command in the absence of the Superintendent. Here, while the suspension letter in question was signed by Mr. Snow, the assistant classification supervisor, and while the Superintendent, Mr. Barton, was present on the day the suspension letter was signed, the letter clearly shows that the action was taken in the name of the superintendent and the testimony of Mr. Cunningham established that it was done with his concurrence. There is nothing in the rule that requires that the inmate or the visitor be afforded a hearing prior to the action suspending visiting privileges. If an inmate feels that the action suspending the visiting privileges of an individual on his list is improper and he can show a direct effect on him as a result thereof, he may file a grievance. Though Jackson indicates he filed a grievance in this case, there is no evidence of it. The incident report in question related strictly to the activity of Ms. Alexander and the action was taken against her even though, in so doing, an adverse effect was felt by Mr. Jackson. No doubt had he desired to do so, he could have grieved that situation, but, as was stated above, there is no evidence that he did so. There is a difference between an IR, as was written here, and a disciplinary report, (DR), which was not involved in this case. A DR involves misconduct on the part of an inmate which may result in disciplinary action, including a suspension of visiting privileges. An IR is nothing more than a memorialization of an unusual incident which is to be brought to the attention of institution authorities. Whereas an inmate is entitled to a hearing before action is taken on the basis of a DR, no hearing is required when an IR is written. If the incident resulting in an IR also results in a DR, a hearing would be afforded the inmate based on the proposed disciplinary action, not on the memorialization in the IR. There is no doubt that the removal of visitors from an inmate's visitors list does have an adverse effect on the morale and possibly the well- being of the inmate involved. However, the action is normally taken on the basis of the conduct of the visitor, not the inmate, and if a decision is made to suspend the visiting privileges of the visitor, the direct effect is on that visitor with a secondary effect only on the innate. In the instant case, officials concluded that Ms. Alexander's inability to account for approximately $20.00 in currency constituted a breach of security which authorized and in fact dictated a need to curtail her entry into the institution for a period of time. There is no evidence that Jackson committed any offense or did anything improper and it is, indeed, unfortunate that he was forced to suffer the deprivation of not being visited by his fiancee for a period of time. Notwithstanding this, it is clear from the testimony of the numerous individuals involved in the investigation of this incident that the action taken under the terms of the rule to suspend Ms. Alexander's privilege to visit was not taken lightly and was based on a bona fide evaluation of a security risk to the institution.
