The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against the 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. 200857, issued to her by Petitioner. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., on January 8, 2005, Corporal Andrew Markham of the City of Sebring Police Department was dispatched to the scene of a reported traffic crash at the intersection of Center Street and Northeast Lakeview Drive in Sebring, Florida. Corporal Markham found no vehicles in the intersection or any evidence of a crash there. Adjacent to the intersection, in the parking lot of the Sebring Public Library, Corporal Markham saw a car with its brake lights illuminated. He approached the car to determine whether the occupants could provide any information about the reported traffic accident. Corporal Markham observed that the front of the car was damaged from its collision with a low barrier wall that bordered the parking lot. The windshield was also damaged from what Corporal Markham concluded was the impact of the occupants' heads with the windshield when the car hit the barrier. When Corporal Markham approached the car, he saw Respondent exit the driver's seat and begin to walk away. Corporal Markham stopped Respondent to speak with her. Respondent had blood on her face, as did the other occupant of the car. At the time of the incident, Respondent denied being the driver of the car. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she was the driver. During his conversation with Respondent at the scene, Corporal Markham smelled the odor of alcohol on Respondent, noted that she was unsteady, and that her eyes were red. When Corporal Markham asked Respondent to take field sobriety tests, she continued to insist that she was not the driver of the car and would not take the tests. Based on his observations at the scene, his training, and his 13 years of experience as a police officer, Corporal Markham believed Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. Therefore, he arrested Respondent for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. Corporal Markham first transported Respondent to the Highlands County Medical Center to receive treatment for her injury. At the Medical Center, Respondent refused medical treatment, and Corporal Markham transported her to the Highlands County Jail. At the jail, Respondent was taken to the area where breath tests are conducted. Corporal Markham read Respondent the "Implied Consent" that informed her that if she refused to take the test, she could lose her driving privilege for up to one year. Respondent refused to take a breath test at the jail. Deputy Loran Danielson of the Highlands County Sheriff's Office was the officer on duty to conduct the breath tests at the jail. When Deputy Danielson met Respondent, he noted that her breath smelled strongly of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, and she was unsteady on her feet. Based on his observations of Respondent, his training, and his 10 years of experience as a Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Danielson was of the opinion that Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. During the time that Deputy Danielson talked to Respondent, she told him that she had consumed "many" drinks, and if she took the breath test, it would show "I'm drunk." On September 27, 2004, less than four months before the incident at issue in this case, Petitioner issued Respondent a Letter of Acknowledgement for an earlier driving under the influence (DUI) violation by Respondent. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she had "a few drinks" with friends at a bar just prior to her arrest, but she denied that she was intoxicated. Respondent said the crash occurred because she had taken her eyes off the road to speak to passengers in the back seat. Respondent said she refused to take the field sobriety tests or the breath test at the jail because she was scared. Respondent explained that one term of her probation for the prior DUI conviction was that she was not to drink alcohol. Respondent expressed remorse for her behavior on January 8, 2005, and claimed she has stopped drinking alcohol. Respondent stated that her career as a correctional officer is very important to her, and she requested another opportunity to prove she is a responsible person and capable correctional officer.
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 Tena D. Grant failed to demonstrate good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and ordering that her certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2006, 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 4th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission and issued certificate no. 14-84-502-04. Respondent's work in law enforcement in Florida has been as a correctional officer. On the night of December 27, 1986, Respondent left his home to go to the American Legion in Lake City, Florida. On his way he met his friend Eddie Goodbread, Jr. Goodbread asked the Respondent if he could go with him to the American Legion Club. The Respondent agreed to have Goodbread come with him. Once at the American Legion the two men socialized. When they got ready to leave the club the Respondent left with his girlfriend. Goodbread took the Respondent's car and parked it on Myrtle Street. Goodbread then went with the Respondent and the Respondent's girlfriend and another person, which the Respondent describes as a girl, to the house of a friend other than Goodbread. At that point the Respondent and Goodbread split up again. Respondent was then with his girlfriend and Goodbread had the keys to Respondent's car. The Respondent came back later and met with Goodbread. Prior to the rendezvous, while Respondent had been with his girlfriend in her car, he had placed a .25 caliber automatic pistol in the glove box of that car. He had a license to carry this weapon issued by local authorities. The weapon was not contemplated as being a necessary item for his work as a correctional officer. When the Respondent got out of his girlfriend's car and approached Goodbread, the Respondent had the pistol in his coat pocket. Respondent told Goodbread that he was ready to go home because he had to go to work the next morning. Goodbread said, in kidding with the Respondent, that he did not have the car keys and that he had locked them in the car. Respondent recognized that he was joking with him. Nonetheless, Respondent looked in the car and saw that the keys were not there. Respondent returned to Goodbread and told Goodbread to give him his keys. Goodbread again told Respondent that the keys were locked in the car. Respondent told Goodbread that he was starting to go home. Goodbread's reaction to this remark was to get in the car and say "let's go." Goodbread then jumped out of the car and said that he was not ready to go. Respondent told him to come on and give him his keys. Respondent told Goodbread "come on man. Let's go." Goodbread told Respondent that he wasn't ready to go that he wanted to talk to some girl. Respondent said "come on let's go." Respondent took the gun out and said "you are going to make me put this on you. Come on let's go." Goodbread grabbed the gun unexpectedly and the gun discharged and killed Goodbread. Respondent never intended to injure Goodbread in his display of the pistol. Eight or ten witnesses saw the incident. It was investigated by the Lake City Police Department and Respondent cooperated in that endeavor to include turning over the pistol to the police and giving a voluntary statement about the incident. Respondent was charged through the Grand Jury of Columbia County, Florida, with the exhibition of the handgun in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense and contrary to Section 790.10, Florida Statutes. A copy of that indictment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Respondent plead guilty to the offense and was fined $176. The firearm was forfeited to the state, he received 11 days in jail and a condition was placed upon him not to possess a firearm for one year. Respondent claims that as a consequence of the incident with his friend Goodbread he began to drink more than he had before. There being no frame of reference to compare his drinking habits before and after the incident, this comment has little utility in understanding his motivation to drink and drive. It has been established that on September 13, 1987, in the early morning hours of that day, specifically around 1:30 a.m., the Respondent was observed by Deputy Sheriff Charles R. Tate of the Columbia County, Florida Sheriff's office, driving in a reckless manner. In this incident the Respondent pulled out of Church Street onto Bay Avenue in Lake City, Florida, in a reckless manner. The officer speeded up in his attempt to stop the Respondent and engaged the emergency equipment in the officer's car. Respondent went west bound on Bay and turned south on Marion Street which is U.S. 41. In the course of this pursuit Respondent accelerated to speeds up to 65 miles per hour. Respondent finally pulled over around the intersection of Marion Street and Grandview Avenue. Respondent cooperated with Officer Tate in the investigation of the driving offense. This included the officer noting that the Respondent had the smell of alcohol about his person. As a consequence, the Respondent was asked to perform certain activities associated with a field sobriety test to ascertain if Respondent was capable of operating his motor vehicle. When the Respondent tried to perform the finger to nose test which is given with each hand, he was unable to do that with either hand. In trying to perform the walking test Respondent staggered and when he made the return trip in the walking test he nearly fell over and had to support himself. From the observations of the Respondent Officer Tate believed that the Respondent was driving under the influence when the stop was made. He arrested the Respondent for that offense and took him to the Florida Highway Patrol station where Robert Bellamy, a trained breathalyzer operator, administered a breathalyzer test to the Respondent. The results show that the Respondent was registering at .16 at 2:25 a.m., and registering at .15 at 2:27 a.m. with .10 being the legal presumption for impairment. Respondent was then taken to the Columbia County Jail. While at the jail correctional officer Jacklyn Yvonne Jones- Holland attempted to fingerprint his right hand. Ms. Holland knew of the Respondent before this evening but had had no opportunity before to speak to the Respondent. In the course of the fingerprinting Respondent took his left hand and rubbed it on the side of the officer's leg in the area of her groin. The first time he did this she stepped back on the chance that the Respondent was unaware of what he was doing at the time. However, when she moved the Respondent again put his hand on her leg in the area of her groin. Based upon the facts of this case in which Officer Tate describes the quality of the Respondent's impairment on a scale of 1 to 10, as being a 5 and Ms. Holland describes this impairment to be 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, Respondent is not found to be so under the influence that he did not realize what he was doing when inappropriately touching Ms. Holland in two instances. When he touched her the second time Ms. Holland went to another part of the building and made out a complaint against the Respondent for his assault and he was arrested for that offense. An Officer Myers read the Respondent his rights related to the assault during which conversation Respondent said, "I'm drunk. Oh yeah, that's what I'm here for. I'm drunk." There was no verbal exchange between the Respondent and Ms. Holland during the inappropriate touching. Ms. Holland had not invited those actions by the Respondent. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 constitutes the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation for the offense of driving under the influence and the disposition of that case in which the Respondent was fined $411, had his license suspended for six months, and attended school for persons who have driven under the influence. He also attended Alcoholics Anonymous and received other counseling contemplated for persons who may have drinking problems. Respondent says that he does not drink at present and no evidence was offered which would refute that claim. Respondent was charged under information with the unlawful, intentional and knowing touching or striking of Jacklyn Yvonne Jones-Holland and plead guilty to battery. He received a period of probation of one year for that offense. Certified copies of the information and order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the defendant on probation can be found as exhibit numbers 5 and 4 respectively. The reckless display of the firearm leading to the death of his friend, and the battery committed on Ms. Holland are all indications of a lack of good moral character and are events for which the Respondent has no acceptable explanation or excuse. Driving under the influence is reprehensible but does not show a lack of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered suspending the certificate of the Respondent for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3816 The facts as presented by the Respondent are commented on as follows: Paragraphs 1-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not accepted to the extent that it argues that the incident involving the death of Mr. Goodbread is directly responsible for the fact that the Respondent was driving under the influence on the night in question and committed the battery on Ms. Holland. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Respondent was too under the influence to understand the fact of his battery against Ms. Holland is rejected. His testimony that he does not have a recollection of touching Ms. Holland runs contrary to the impression of the facts, that impression being that the act of the Respondent was volitional. The idea of his cooperation with Trooper Bellamy in the administration of the breathalyzer examination and the efforts to comply with what was expected of him in responding to the circumstance of the driving under influence offense is recognized as mitigation, but does not explain away the offense. The suggestion in Paragraph 7 that the death of the friend and the driving under the influence are interrelated is not accepted. Respondent did indicate that he was emotionally upset over the death of his friend, this would be expected but it is not clear to what extent his drinking increased following the death of the friend as compared to his drinking habits before that time. Respondent's suggestion that he is free from the effects of alcohol problems at present was not refuted. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that he presently has any problem with alcohol abuse. Reference to other traffic violations and his service record as a correctional officer leaves a neutral impression of the Respondent which is neither to his advantage or that of the Petitioner. Consequently, the facts of those prior events have not been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1792 Lake City, Florida 32056-1792 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification in the face of an arrest and conviction of Petitioner for a felony offense, which allegedly would cause the Petitioner to be rejected as an applicant for certification. The denial of licensure is purportedly in keeping with the dictates of Subsection 943.13(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner had made application to be certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida, in keeping with the terms and conditions of Subsection 943.13, Florida Statutes. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has completed all administrative requirements for such licensure; however, he has been denied licensure based upon his arrest, a finding of guilt and judgment and sentence related to a charge of conspiracy to transport a stolen vehicle in Interstate Commerce and Foreign Commerce from New York, New York, to Miami, Florida, and from Miami, Florida, to Havana, Cuba, knowing that the motor vehicle had been stolen. This offense related to Title XVIII, Sections 2312 and 2371, U.S.C., in an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 8519-M-CR. For these matters the Petitioner was imprisoned for a period of two (2) years on two (2) counts of the indictment, Counts 3 and 6. The sentence in those counts was to run concurrently. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Petitioner has had his civil rights restored in the State of Florida, together with his rights to own, possess and use a firearm. Federal firearms disability arising from the felony conviction have also been set aside. See Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, respectively, admitted into evidence.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of Correctional Officers within the State of Florida. The Respondent is employed as a Correctional Officer at the Hendry County Correctional Institution. On December 25, 1998, the Respondent worked an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift as a Correctional Officer. After leaving his shift, the Respondent went home, showered, ate dinner, gathered Christmas gifts for his brother's family, and left the house with his wife. He took his wife to the "Eagles" club and returned to his house to take his wife's children to their father's house. He then drove to his brother's house, about an hour from the Respondent's home, where he visited and exchanged gifts. At about 11:00 p.m., the Respondent departed from his brother's house and went to the "Eagles" club, where he learned his wife had gone to the "Moon Cricket" bar. The Respondent proceeded on to the bar where he met his wife and friends. While at the bar, the Respondent consumed an indeterminate quantity of beer in the two hours remaining until closing time. The bar is small, and a "party" atmosphere prevailed. Apparently beverage orders were not taken, rather the bar's owner (a friend of the Respondent's) repeatedly brought bottled beers to the table. It is not possible to quantify the Respondent's consumption in a credible manner. When the bar closed shortly after 2:00 a.m. on December 26, 1998, the Respondent collected his wife, who was admittedly intoxicated, along with additional quantities of beer, and began to drive home. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on December 26, 1998, the Respondent was observed by Collier County Sheriff Deputy Tom Amey to be driving without headlights. Deputy Amey has completed substantial training in detection of persons driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances and in conducting field sobriety evaluation. At the time of initial observation, the Respondent's truck was stopped at an intersection facing towards Deputy Amey's vehicle. Deputy Amey flashed his headlights apparently to remind the Respondent to turn on the headlights, but got no response from the Respondent. When the Respondent proceeded through the intersection without headlights, Deputy Amey turned his vehicle around, followed, and then stopped the Respondent. After approaching the Respondent's vehicle, Deputy Amey asked for the Respondent's license and registration. The Respondent responded very slowly and deliberately to the deputy's instructions, fumbling with his wallet as he removed the documents. Deputy Amey observed that the Respondent's eyes were "glassy" and "bloodshot" and that there was a "moderate odor” of alcohol present. Deputy Amey also observed "cool, fresh" beer located on the front floorboard and the rear floorboard of the Respondent's extended cab truck. Deputy Amey asked the Respondent to exit the truck and the Respondent did so slowly. While talking to the Respondent, Deputy Amey observed that the Respondent's speech was slightly slurred and "thick-tongued." Deputy Amey asked the Respondent to submit to a field sobriety exercise. The Respondent stated that his knee prevented him from completing the physical tests. Deputy Amey administered the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" (HGN) test. Nystagmus is an involuntary eye motion (described as a "jerkiness") typically exhibited by persons under the influence of alcohol or other central nervous system depressants. The HGN test is a standard part of the field sobriety evaluation. An HGN test permits the observation of the level of "jerkiness" in a person's eyes. Normally, a person's eyes appear to move smoothly. Under the influence of alcohol or other substances, a person's ability to control eye movement is diminished, and a "jerky" motion is observable. Deputy Amey has received specific training related to administration of the HGN test. Upon observing the Respondent's eye movement during the test, Deputy Amey reported that the onset of the Respondent's nystagmus was "almost immediate" and "very distinct." Based on the deputy's observation, the Respondent was placed under arrest for driving under the influence and was transported to the "stockade" in Immokalee, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a Final Order imposing a one-year probationary period and requiring such counseling as the Department deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2001, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of sections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), by possessing not more than 20 grams of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of certifying correctional officers and taking disciplinary action against them for failing to maintain good moral character as required by section 943.13(7). § 943.1395, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Respondent was a certified Florida Correctional Officer, and employed as a correctional officer at Everglades Correctional Institute ("ECI"). On March 31, 2011, shortly after reporting to work, Respondent was confronted by Inspectors George Montenegro, Philip Cataldi, and Darrel Grabner (all of whom are employed with the Office of the Inspector General within the Florida Department of Corrections). Respondent was requested to submit, and consented, to a pat down search of his person. The personal search did not reveal any contraband. Thereafter, Respondent was requested to submit, and again consented, to a search of his personal vehicle located in the ECI employee parking lot. Respondent was aware that, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-208.002, as a Department of Corrections employee, while on the ECI premises, he was subject to search or inspection of his person and vehicle.1/ Respondent escorted Inspectors Montenegro, Cataldi, and Grabner to his vehicle. Respondent acquired his vehicle, a 2006 Chevrolet Colorado, at an automobile auction in January 2011; the vehicle had been repossessed from its previous owner. Respondent opened the vehicle and then remained in close proximity, at the side of Inspector Montenegro. Inspector Cataldi, while searching Respondent's vehicle, located a small clear plastic bag.2/ Specifically, the bag was located on the floor and two to three inches back from the mid-point of the front passenger's seat. Within the bag Inspector Cataldi observed a green, leafy substance which, based on his law enforcement experience and training, he believed to be marijuana. Inspector Cataldi contemporaneously advised Inspector Grabner of the find and transferred the bag to Inspector Grabner's possession. Inspector Grabner observed residue that, based on his law enforcement training and experience, was consistent with marijuana. Inspector Grabner then proceeded to confirm his suspicion by utilizing the Duquenois-Levine reagent test, a presumptive field test designed to identify THC in marijuana.3/ Inspector Grabner, who has performed the same test on several hundred occasions, transferred the de minimis amount of suspicious material with tweezers into the test kit's pre- packaged ampoule, and followed the remaining directions as indicated in the package insert. After the sample was agitated, as directed, a presumptive positive result for THC was indicted by the color purple. The positive result was also observed by Inspector Montenegro. According to Inspector Grabner, the entirety of the suspicious material was consumed in the Duquenois-Levine testing process. The persuasive evidence establishes that the residue contained within the clear plastic bag was marijuana. Respondent was thereafter interviewed by Inspector Montenegro. At that time, Respondent denied any knowledge of the clear plastic bag or its contents. Respondent conceded that, during the approximately three-month period he had owned his car, he had cleaned and vacuumed the vehicle on multiple occasions. Respondent clarified, however, that when he acquired the repossessed vehicle from an automobile auction, the vehicle had not been detailed and was dirty. He further elaborated that, as he was the primary occupant of the vehicle, he had not attempted to vacuum the flooring underneath the passenger seat. Respondent credibly testified that he had no knowledge of the presence of the baggie or its contents.
Recommendation Based on 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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 3rd day of October, 2012.
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 Whether Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to a felony thereby triggering the statutory mandate that the Department of State revoke his Security Officer's license for a period set by statute?
Findings Of Fact Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, governs the private security, investigative and recovery industries. The industries were found by the Legislature when it passed Chapter 90-364, Laws of Florida, in 1990, to be "rapidly expanding fields that require regulation to ensure that the interests of the public will be adequately served and protected." Section 493.6100, Florida Statutes. Among the findings announced by the Legislature in the enactment of the chapter was that "persons who are not of good moral character engaged in the private security, investigative or recovery industries are a threat to the welfare of the public if placed in positions of trust." Id. Petitioner, the Department of State, (the "Department") is the agency of the State of Florida conferred with administrative authority under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Among its duties are the receipt of applications for Security Officer licenses and their processing (including a background investigation) ultimately culminating in either issuance of the license or denial of the application. After issuance of a license to a new licensee, the Department has authority based on certain grounds to take disciplinary action against the licensee ranging from a reprimand to revocation of the license. Respondent, Louis Palmieri, holds a Class "D" Security Officer License issued by the Department. Bearing the license number D91-04959, the current license has been effective since March 25, 1997. On or about April 7, 1994, in Duval County, Florida, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of "lewd and lascivious act upon a child," in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, in Case No. 94-2507CF. An order of probation was rendered under which adjudication of guilt was withheld in favor of probation for five years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Neighbors and long-time friends of the family of Mr. Palmieri are aware that he entered the plea of nolo contendere to a felony. They are also aware of the nature of the felonious charges and his status as with regard to the criminal case as being "on probation." Still, they hold him in high regard. He is seen as reliable and a good worker. Those who occasionally drive him to work or have seen his workplace were quick to point out that there are no children present at the place where he is currently employed as a security officer. Mr. Palmieri has not shielded his neighbors from his misdeed. In fact, he has confided in them that the circumstances leading to his nolo plea involved exposing himself in public in the presence of a twelve-year old girl. Nonetheless, one of his neighbors, the grandmother of a five year-old girl who frequently cares for the child, stated that she would not hesitate to invite Mr. Palmieri over to her house for dinner in the presence of her granddaughter so long as Mr. Palmieri and the child were never left alone. Despite his neighbor's willingness to issue such an invitation, and to his credit, Mr. Palmieri informed his neighbor that he could not be in the child's presence consistent with the terms of his probation. Mr. Palmieri remains under the supervision of the Department of Corrections to this day. Absent a violation of probation, April 6, 1999, will be the last day of probationary supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, its is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State enter a final order revoking the Class "D" Security Officer License of Louis Palmieri, License No. D91-04959, and that he not be able to reapply for a license pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, until a period of three years has expired since his final release from supervision, whenever that may be. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Hearings Division of Administrative 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 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Cathleen B. Clarke, Esquire Melbourne Financial Centre, Suite 102 1990 West New Haven Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32904 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John M. Russi, Director Division of Licensing Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anthony G. Benjamin was certified by Petitioner on May 25, 1990, and was issued certificate number 44-90-502-02. At the time of the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent was a certified correctional officer employed by Glades Correctional Institution. On July 1, 1990, Officer Amadeo Bianchi and Officer Keith Golden were working as patrol officers with the South Bay Police Department in Palm Beach County. They received a call regarding a prowler at 188 Harrell Drive. They responded to that call in a marked police car, and both officers were wearing their police uniforms. Officers Bianchi and Golden arrived at approximately 3:52 a.m. and saw Respondent outside the apartment at that address. Both officers knew Respondent. They also knew that he lived in the apartment at that address and that he was employed as a correctional officer at Glades Correctional Institution. The officers proceeded to the door of the apartment and knocked. Keisha Benjamin, Respondent's wife, opened the door. Respondent walked through the open door past the police officers and his wife, heading straight for the bedroom door located to the right of the door where the police officers were standing. As Respondent proceeded toward the bedroom door, his wife was still standing at the apartment door with the police officers, explaining that she did not want Respondent there, that they had been having problems, and that he had moved out approximately a week earlier. Officer Golden watched Respondent reach the bedroom door, discover that the closed door was locked, and then kick the door open. After Respondent entered the bedroom, Officer Golden could hear the sounds of people fighting. Both police officers headed toward the bedroom door. When the two officers reached the bedroom door, they could see Respondent and another man fighting on top of the bed. The two officers entered the bedroom, each grabbing one of the fighting men from behind in order to break up the fight. Officer Bianchi grabbed Respondent. It was later determined that the individual Officer Golden grabbed was a man named Paul King, Respondent's wife's former boyfriend. Officer Golden pulled Paul King away from the fight and out into the living room area of the apartment. Golden instructed him to calm down, to stay there, and to not move. King cooperated with Officer Golden and did as he was instructed. As Officer Golden turned to walk toward the bedroom, he saw Officer Bianchi and Respondent coming out of the bedroom. They were still struggling, and Officer Bianchi was attempting to restrain Respondent from behind. At this point, Respondent and King were no more than 10-15 feet apart. Officer Bianchi turned Respondent, who could then see King on the other side of the living room area. Respondent was still enraged at King. Respondent, with Officer Bianchi trying to restrain him from behind, started toward Officer Golden, which was in the same direction as where Paul King was located. At the same time, Officer Golden started going toward Respondent. As Officer Golden met Respondent and Officer Bianchi half way across the room, Officer Golden bent forward to reach down and sweep Respondent's legs out from under him. As Officer Golden bent forward, Respondent struck him in the right eye with his closed fist, causing a small gash no more than 1/2" long under Golden's eye, which required no stitches. Officer Golden stood up, shook his head, bent forward again, and struck Respondent on the back of his legs causing Respondent to lose his balance. Respondent kept struggling with the two police officers until they handcuffed him. Officer Golden handcuffed Respondent by placing Respondent's hands behind his back. Once Officer Golden handcuffed Respondent, Officer Bianchi told Golden that Golden was bleeding and then punched Respondent in the face several times for injuring Officer Golden. Respondent was then placed under arrest. Court documents admitted in evidence indicate that Respondent was charged with battery on a police officer (Count 1) and resisting arrest with violence (Count 2). On February 21, 1991, he was found guilty of Count 1 although adjudication was withheld, was found not guilty of Count 2, and was placed on probation for 18 months. On July 17, 1991, an Order was entered as a result of a Motion for Clarification of Sentence filed by Respondent. That Order provides that the record regarding Respondent's criminal charges was amended to reflect that Respondent was guilty of battery, that adjudication was withheld, and that he was placed on probation for a period of one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 22nd day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-3336 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-11, 13-24, 28- 31, 33, and 34 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 12, 25, and 26 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 27 and 32 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn Pompey Whitehurst Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mark K. Koenig, Esquire Suite 300 Pavilion 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline on Respondent's correctional certificate for alleged violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 17450?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the election of rights and proof identifying Respondent's employment with the Florida Department of Corrections, it is inferred that Respondent is certified as a corrections officer by Petitioner. It is perceived that Respondent, in his contest of material facts, disagrees with the allegations in paragraph two to the Administrative Complaint, as those facts might reveal a violation of statutes and rules referred to in the Administrative Complaint in its latter provisions. Respondent rented an acoustic guitar and an item referred to as a "gig-bag" from Guitar Renters in its Gainesville, Florida store. The amount of rental was $30.74 for the period November 16, 1999, through December 11, 1999. The overdue rate for the rental was $2.97 per day. The retail value of the instrument and bag was identified in the rental agreement as $345.00. The rental contract was executed by Respondent agreeing to those terms. The contract made clear that the arrangement was for rental only and not for sale. There was a specific reminder that any rental over 10 days past due would be reported to the police department as a stolen item. Respondent did not timely return the guitar and bag consistent with the contract terms. As a consequence, the proprietors at Guitar Renters sent letters in the ordinary mail to remind Respondent that he was late in returning the items. No response was made to those letters. A certified letter was sent to Respondent reminding him of his obligation to return the equipment. Again Respondent failed to respond. Scott Tennyson, who managed the Gainesville store, telephoned Respondent about the overdue items. Respondent replied that he could not return the instrument. When asked why, Respondent indicated that he had pawned the instrument. Mr. Tennyson told Respondent that if the matter were not resolved in some fashion, namely for Respondent to go back and get the guitar from the pawnshop and bring it to the owner, then criminal charges would be filed. Consistent with that statement, a complaint was made and criminal charges were filed in the Circuit Court in and for Alachua County, Florida, Court No. 01-2000-01573-CFA, C.R. No. 007601, Division One. This case was pursuant to a sworn complaint from the Gainesville Police Department charging Respondent with grand theft. The case was subsequently nolle prosequi/no information, based upon what is referred to in that dismissal, as an appropriate administrative action deemed sufficient in lieu of prosecution. On June 25, 2001, the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of Guitar Renters when Respondent made payment in full on the items that he had rented. In effect, the items were sold by way of restitution at their stated value when the rental contract was made.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's correctional certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin Dannunzio 1718 Spring Street Lake City, Florida 32025 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Program Director 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
