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
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 9, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. See §§ 943.12(3) and 943.1395, Fla. Stat. (2004). Mr. Rendon is a Florida-certified law enforcement and corrections officer. Mr. Rendon's first contact with Sheila Smith and Kimberly Ann Sturtz, Mrs. Smith's daughter, was in November 1998, when Ms. Sturtz called the police after an argument with her mother. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Sturtz was a child under 16 years of age. In December 1998, Mr. Rendon was dispatched to the Smith residence when Mrs. Smith called the police as a result of a fight with her son, Travis Caley. Mr. Rendon arrested Travis on December 2, 1998, and Travis was subsequently placed in a foster home. Mr. Rendon developed an interest in Travis and the Smith family, and he periodically contacted a representative of the Florida Department of Children and Family Services to check on Travis's situation. Mr. Rendon also talked to Travis on the telephone. Mr. Rendon often telephoned Mrs. Smith or went to the Smith residence to give her news about Travis, and Mrs. Smith often telephoned Mr. Rendon. Mr. Rendon had Mrs. Smith's and Kimberly's cell phone and pager numbers, and he used a code when he paged them, so they would know to call him back. He frequently paged Kimberly during the day. Mr. Rendon visited the Smith residence several times when Mr. and Mrs. Smith were home. He also stopped at the Smith residence when Mr. and Mrs. Smith were not at home and Ms. Sturtz was at the residence alone or with a friend named Alicia Cox, who lived across the street from the Smith residence. During these visits, Ms. Sturtz and Mr. Rendon talked but generally stayed outside the house, on the porch or in the yard. Mr. Rendon's visits to the Smith residence were not as frequent between February and April 1999, during the time Mr. Rendon was assigned to patrol an area of Lake County that was a considerable distance from the Smith's residence. His visits increased after April 1999, when he was assigned to patrol an area that included the Smith's residence. During this time, he often visited Ms. Sturtz when her parents were not at home. On May 27, 1999, Mr. Rendon stopped at the Smith's residence at a time when Ms. Sturtz was alone. Mr. Rendon and Ms. Sturtz sat on the porch for a while, talking. During this conversation, Ms. Sturtz told Mr. Rendon that she had a "crush" on him. Ms. Sturtz and Mr. Rendon subsequently entered the house, where Mr. Rendon asked Ms. Sturtz what she would do if he kissed her; Ms. Sturtz told him that she would probably kiss him back. Ms. Sturtz's back was against the wall inside the door, and Mr. Rendon held Ms. Sturtz's hands over her head; he kissed her; asked her to stick out her tongue so that he could suck on it; ran his hands down the sides of her body, grazing the sides of her breasts; lifted her skirt; licked and kissed the area around her navel; and stuck his tongue in her navel. Ms. Sturtz became frightened and asked Mr. Rendon to stop, which Mr. Rendon did. Ms. Sturtz observed that Mr. Rendon appeared to be sexually aroused during the incident and had a wet spot on the front of his trousers. Ms. Sturtz was 14 years old at the time of this incident. Mr. Rendon was arrested on June 9, 1999, for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 16 years of age. On or about October 13, 2000, Mr. Rendon entered a plea of nolo contendere to two charges of misdemeanor battery, defined in Section 784.03, in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit in Lake County, Florida. These charges were based on the incident involving Ms. Sturtz that took place at the Smith residence on May 27, 1999. A judgment was entered adjudicating Mr. Rendon guilty of these crimes. The evidence presented by the Commission is sufficient to establish that Mr. Rendon failed to maintain good moral character. He touched Ms. Sturtz in a lewd and lascivious manner on May 27, 1999, and his actions also constituted misdemeanor battery.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding that David Rendon failed to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1999), and that his certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 30th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether the law enforcement officer's certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, should be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, based on two incidents of misconduct. A third incident alleged in the second unnumbered paragraph of paragraph two of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed at the beginning of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact Nicholas R. Small was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer before the occurrence of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint was filed after a letter of complaint was received from a citizen in April, 1985. This delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission staff accounts for the delay in the filing of the complaint. On June 13, 1978, Mr. Albert Lee Taylor, his wife and their three small children, were leaving Miami in the family car which was being driven by Mr. Taylor. They were on their way to visit a sick relative in Lake Placid, Florida. Due to Mr. Taylor's work schedule they were unable to begin their trip until after midnight. The Taylors are black. The Respondent, Mr. Small, was a police officer for the City of Hialeah Gardens. He observed the Taylor vehicle as it passed his police car at the corner of N.W. 81st Street and l03rd Avenue. Mr. Small pulled Mr. Taylor's vehicle over because he believed there were deficiencies in the tag light on the car. When Mr. Small left the patrol car and walked to Mr. Taylor's car, he told Mr. Taylor to get out of the car and walk to the back of Taylor's vehicle, which Mr. Taylor did. While using his flashlight, Mr. Small observed a handgun setting in an area between the bucket seats of Taylor's automobile. Mr. Small took possession of the gun. Mr. Taylor carried the gun for protection during the family's travel. Mr. Small arrested Mr. Taylor and while doing so required him to place his hands on the hood of the police car to conduct a pat- down search of Mr. Taylor. The police car engine was running. The hood of the police car was hot to the touch which made it difficult for Mr. Taylor to take the position which Mr. Small required him to assume. Small told Mr. Taylor to spread his legs so that he could be patted-down. Mr. Taylor had recently had hip surgery to replace the ball joint of his hip with an artificial joint. This restricted his range of motion and any attempt to move the leg beyond its range resulted in severe pain. Mr. Taylor spread his legs as far as his hip condition would permit without pain. Mr. Small became dissatisfied with Mr. Taylor's stance and told him to spread his legs more. Mr. Taylor told Mr. Small that he had already spread his legs as far apart as he could with a pin in his hip. Mr. Taylor's wife, who was near by, told Mr. Small that she was a nurse, that Mr. Taylor had a pin in his hip, and that he could spread his legs no further apart. Mr. Small told Mrs. Taylor to "shut up" and shouted that he did not care about that. Mr. Small took his leg and placed it between Mr. Taylor's feet and, by pushing outward, forced Mr. Taylor's legs further apart. Mr. Taylor lost his balance and, as a result of the action, fell on the hood of the car. This caused Mr. Taylor severe pain at the time and resulted in increased pain and tenderness in the leg for several weeks. Mr. Small took Mr. Taylor to jail. Mr. Taylor was never convicted of any crime as the result of that arrest. The next incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place on October 24, 1981, when Mr. Small was a uniformed officer for the City of Opa- Locka. Mr. Small had been sent to the scene of a disturbance near Rutland Street and 22nd Avenue. Rayfield Brown, Lloyd Johnson, and his two-year old daughter Fiona were there. Mr. Small and other officers arrived and Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were arrested and placed in Mr. Small's police car. After the arrest Mr. Small got into the police car to drive Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown to the police station. On the way to the police station, Mr. Small turned onto Rutland Street. Mr. Brown looked at the sidewalk on the street corner and saw Mr. Johnson's child, Fiona, standing alone on the sidewalk and crying. Mr. Johnson saw his daughter as they passed the corner and asked Mr. Small to stop the car and pick the child up. Mr. Johnson pleaded with Mr. Small to pick up his daughter so that she would not be left alone on the street but Mr. Small did not stop to attend to the child or take any other action to assure that another officer would take care of the child, thus leaving her abandoned in a urban residential area.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the law enforcement officer certification of the Respondent, Nicholas R. Small, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2383 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The substance of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent No proposed findings of fact were submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter Kneski, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 626 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Respondent's certification as a police officer should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On December 19, 1986, Thomas Barrow was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, Certificate Number 23-86-999-03. He was initially employed by the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department in April, 1986. Barrow has served as a deputy sheriff with three sheriffs. His duties have included at least five years as an investigator for the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department. He is currently serving as a corporal with Sheriff Jerry Brown. As a corporal under Sheriff Brown, Barrow is a line supervisor working in the field with the road deputies. Barrow assists the road deputies when questions arise and carries out the orders of his superiors. During Barrow's tenure with the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department, his performance evaluations can generally be characterized as above satisfactory or outstanding. Barrow's last evaluation, by Sheriff Brown, rates his performance as satisfactory (the highest rating available); however, both Sheriff Brown and Barrow's immediate supervisor, Lieutenant Joel Lowery, consider him to be a "very effective," and "good" supervisor. Barrow has been disciplined on three occasions as a deputy sheriff. On two occasions, the discipline was voluntarily withdrawn or overturned by the Santa Rosa County Civil Service Board. The remaining disciplinary action was a verbal reprimand for working overtime without authorization. In March, 1991, Barrow was discharged from his position as deputy sheriff by Sheriff E.M. Coffman for conduct unbecoming an employee and mishandling of evidence. Barrow successfully appealed his discharge through the Santa Rosa County Civil Service Board which found his discharge to be without just cause. Barrow was ordered reinstated to his position as deputy sheriff and granted full backpay and restoration of benefits. Corporal Barrow was not formally returned to his position as deputy sheriff until September, 1992. During the period from March, 1991, through September, 1992, Barrow did not visit the Sheriff's Department, have any current knowledge of the activities of the Department's narcotics division, its personnel operating as undercover agents or any narcotics investigations being conducted by the division. It is during the period of Barrow's termination that the allegations of misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint arise. Prior to Barrow's termination in March, 1991, he was working in the Sheriff's Department criminal investigations division. Through that duty, Barrow met an individual named Jimmy Joe McCurdy. McCurdy, a longtime resident of Santa Rosa County, was confined in the County jail as a result of a violation of probation for a federal arson conviction. Barrow met McCurdy when he assisted a federal agent in obtaining McCurdy's release on bond as part of a plea agreement. During the summer and fall of 1991, McCurdy would occasionally contact Barrow by telephone about problems he was having. On one occasion, McCurdy asked Barrow to help him correct a problem with a suspended driver's license. On another occasion, McCurdy asked Barrow to locate a vehicle which had been confiscated by the Sheriff's Department. Barrow provided McCurdy with information about how to correct the problem or persons to contact for assistance. McCurdy had somewhat attached himself to Barrow when he needed advice. Barrow did not attach any real significance to the telephone contacts made by McCurdy. They were infrequent, once every four or five weeks, and he had other major concerns at the time having lost his job. Barrow did not socialize with McCurdy, have any business dealings with McCurdy or loan him any money. Barrow was simply trying to pacify McCurdy, who was somewhat paranoid, that "everybody wasn't out to get him." During almost every conversation, Barrow advised McCurdy if he was not doing anything wrong, he did not have to worry. McCurdy always assured Barrow that he was not doing anything wrong. Barrow believed McCurdy because he could not imagine McCurdy or anyone stupid enough to commit criminal acts while on probation, awaiting sentencing for a federal crime, and while helping the federal government on the same matter. In early October 1991, Jimmy Joe McCurdy telephoned Barrow at his home. McCurdy wanted to know if Barrow had found out anything about his confiscated car. Barrow advised him he had not and that McCurdy should contact FDLE about the car. During the course of the conversation, McCurdy told Barrow he felt the County was trying to set him up and that cars were driving by his house. Barrow advised McCurdy that he needed to stay out of trouble. Barrow further advised McCurdy if he was not doing anything wrong, nobody could do anything to him, but if he was doing anything wrong, they would catch him. Finally, during the conversation, McCurdy asked Barrow about a car which had driven by his house and described it to Barrow. Barrow told McCurdy that it could possibly be one which belonged to the Sheriff's Department. At the time of the October, 1991, conversation between McCurdy and Barrow, Barrow did not know the Sheriff's Department was conducting an undercover narcotics investigation of Jimmy Joe McCurdy, nor did he know McCurdy was engaging in the possession and sale of illegal drugs. On the contrary, McCurdy assured Barrow on several occasions he was "staying straight." Had Barrow known of the narcotics investigation, he would not have disclosed to McCurdy the car was possibly an undercover vehicle used by the Sheriff's Department. On the evening of November 8, 1993, Jimmy Joe McCurdy was arrested for the possession of marijuana as a result of a narcotics investigation being conducted by the Sheriff's Department and FDLE. The undercover narcotics investigation had begun in early October, 1991, with Jimmy Joe McCurdy the subject of the investigation. The arrest of McCurdy on November 8, 1991, concluded the investigation. Thomas Barrow was not aware of the investigation of McCurdy by the Sheriff's Department at any time prior to the end of the investigation. During the course of the investigation, the Sheriff's Department became aware of Barrow's comments to McCurdy relating to the possibility of the car being an undercover vehicle. The Sheriff's Department did not contact Barrow to seek his cooperation in not revealing any additional information to McCurdy which might be damaging to the investigation. On the evening of November 8, 1991, after McCurdy was arrested by the Sheriff's Department and the FDLE, McCurdy telephoned Thomas Barrow at his home. The telephone call was made at the request of FDLE. McCurdy was asked to contact Barrow and describe several cars to him. McCurdy agreed to cooperate by making the telephone call. At approximately 10:00 p.m., on November 8, 1991, McCurdy telephoned Barrow. Barrow was already asleep, but answered the telephone. When McCurdy initially brought up the subject of a car, Barrow mistakenly believed that he was speaking about McCurdy's confiscated car and told him he had not been able to find out any additional information about the car. When McCurdy told Barrow he was referring to the possible undercover car from the Sheriff's Department, Barrow indicated it was the type of car driven by Leonard Thomas. McCurdy then told Barrow a man came by earlier in the evening "driving a silver or grey Camaro." Barrow told McCurdy the Sheriff's Department has undercover cars of that kind. During the conversation, McCurdy indicated the driver of the car was "asking a lot of questions" and was concerned whether the County was "out to get him." Barrow advised McCurdy: "No, now just be careful, you know, don't be messing with nothing, of course, you told me you hadn't been messing with anything you told me last time so." On two other occasions in the conversation, Barrow advised McCurdy to "keep it straight" and "stay outta anything." During the November 8, 1991, conversation, Barrow did not know the Sheriff's Department was conducting a narcotics investigations of Jimmy Joe McCurdy, nor did he know McCurdy was engaging in the possession or sale of illegal drugs. Had Barrow believed McCurdy was engaging in the sale of illegal drugs, he would have advised the Sheriff's Department or Charles Layman of FDLE concerning McCurdy's conduct. Corporal Barrow's disclosures of information to Jimmy Joe McCurdy relating to the possibility of vehicles and persons working undercover for the Sheriff's Department were unthinking, incautious and in poor judgment for a law enforcement officer. Barrow acknowledges the errors. The disclosures were not made by Barrow with any intent to obstruct an ongoing narcotics investigation or assist McCurdy in avoiding detection during the investigation. Barrow's family and friends are all involved in law enforcement. Barrow would never jeopardize a law enforcement officer by purposely revealing confidential information. Since the McCurdy incident, Barrow has returned to work with the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department. The McCurdy incident has been disclosed to Sheriff James Brown and Barrow's supervisor, Lieutenant Joel Lowery. While these individuals do not consider Barrow's conduct in the matter proper, it has not affected Barrow's performance as a law enforcement officer. Barrow is considered to be a very effective law enforcement officer who exercises good judgment in the field.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 92-7100 The facts contained in paragraphs 1-4, 7-9, 95, 96 and 103 of the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 12-19, 25, 32, 33, 35, 42, 50, 63, 64, 69, 74-76, 78, 81-84, 88, 89, and 93 of the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 11, 20-24, 26-31, 34, 36- 41, 43-49, 51-62, 65-68, 70-73, 77, 79, 80, 85(a)&(b)-87, 90-92, 94, 97-102, and 104-118 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1-24 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Atkins-White, Esq. Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esq. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Ramage, Esq. General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Joe L. Wheeler, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and dated November 16, 2005, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, certifying individuals for employment or appointment as a law enforcement officer and investigating complaints against individuals holding certificates as law enforcement officers in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 943.3195, Florida Statutes. At the times pertinent to this matter, Respondent, Joe L. Wheeler, was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 169035 on December 11, 1996. He was employed with the Hollywood Police Department. At the times relevant to this matter, Mr. Wheeler was married to Donna Wilson-Wheeler. They were married in April 1996. They divorced in November 2004, after the events at issue in this matter. On June 11, 2003, Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Wilson-Wheeler lived together, along with four children: Vaughn Mitchell, who was 17 years of age at that time; S.M, who was 13 years of age at that time; J.W., who was five years of age at that time; and Jo. W., who was 12 years of age at that time. Vaughn Mitchell and S.M. are Ms. Wilson-Wheeler's sons from a previous marriage; J.W. is the daughter of Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Wilson-Wheeler; and Jo. W. is Mr. Wheeler's son. During the evening of June 11, 2003, Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, and all four children were in the family residence. At approximately 7:00 p.m., an argument began between Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Wilson-Wheeler in a downstairs room. Following the verbal altercation, which was over a video camera that Ms. Wilson-Wheeler had purchased for Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Wheeler went upstairs. Shortly after Mr. Wheeler went upstairs, Ms. Wilson- Wheeler, concerned about whether Mr. Wheeler would take her cellular telephone out of her purse, which she had left in the master bedroom, also went upstairs. When Ms. Wilson-Wheeler walked into the master bedroom, not finding her cellular phone in her purse, she confronted Mr. Wheeler, who was in the master bedroom bathroom. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler accused Mr. Wheeler of taking her cellular phone, which Mr. Wheeler denied. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler continued to accuse Mr. Wheeler, demanding that he return the phone. Both were angry and the "discussion" was heated. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, angry over her husband's denials, went to a desk in the bedroom and picked up a camera used by Mr. Wheeler and offered it in exchange for her phone. Mr. Wheeler angrily demanded she give him the camera, and she complied because she "knew now that he was ticked off." Ms. Wilson-Wheeler told Mr. Wheeler that she would just have the telephone service provider turn her phone off and went to retrieve her purse from the bed. As she did so, Mr. Wheeler said, "Here's your phone in the bathroom where you left it." Ms. Wilson-Wheeler went to the bathroom to retrieve the phone. Believing that she had not left the phone there, she told Mr. Wheeler, "You took it out." She also told him that she guessed he was still angry about the video camera. Mr. Wheeler replied, "Fuck you, fuck you" and told her he could buy his own camera, to which Ms. Wilson-Wheeler said, "Good." As the verbal sparing continued, Mr. Wheeler lost control and grabbed Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, who was facing the bathroom sink, by the neck with his left hand and punched her hard in the head with his right fist. His grip on her throat was tight enough to restrict her breathing. After punching her, Mr. Wheeler kicked Ms. Wilson- Wheeler's legs out from under her, causing her to fall to the bathroom floor. Mr. Wheeler pinned Ms. Wilson-Wheeler on the floor with his knee and, while cursing her, continued to punch her in the face and head, causing her head to strike the bathroom floor. Mr. Wheeler continued to choke Ms. Wilson-Wheeler while he hit her, causing her to have difficulty breathing. She began to fear that she would lose consciousness. The children, who were downstairs when Mr. Wheeler first struck Ms. Wilson-Wheeler and heard the commotion, ran upstairs to see what was happening. Vaughn came into the bathroom and, as Mr. Wheeler held his fist above Ms. Wilson- Wheeler ready to strike her again, he grabbed Mr. Wheeler's fist. Jo. W. also entered the bathroom yelling at his father to stop. S.M. entered the room, pleading with his mother to get up. Mr. Wheeler, when Vaughn grabbed him, got up off the floor and, with Vaughn attempting to restrain him, told Vaughn he would not hurt Ms. Wilson-Wheeler anymore. Mr. Wheeler's attack on Ms. Wilson-Wheeler caused visible bruises and swelling to her face, right arm, and left leg. She also had scratches on her neck, arm, and legs as result of the battery. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler, picked up the telephone to call 911, but, when Mr. Wheeler threatened to kill her, did not make the call. Instead, she left the house. Although she considered driving to a police station to report the incident, she did not because of fear of what Mr. Wheeler would do to her. Eventually she drove to a nearby store, after picking up S.M., and had him go into the store to purchase a disposable camera. She then had S.M. take photographs, which were admitted into evidence, of the injuries caused by Mr. Wheeler. Ms. Wilson-Wheeler eventually returned to the family home. She spent the night in her daughter's room. The next day, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler attempted to discuss family finances with Mr. Wheeler, who was lifting weights in the garage. Mr. Wheeler became angry, cursed her, and repeated his threat to kill her. On June 18, 2003, after a dispute over the telephone, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler told Mr. Wheeler that she was going to report the incident. She was later told by her son that police officers were at the house with Mr. Wheeler. She immediately left her place of employment and went to the Pembroke Pines Police Department where she reported the June 11th incident. On June 19, 2003, Ms. Wilson-Wheeler sought a domestic violence injunction against Mr. Wheeler. The State Attorney's Office charged Mr. Wheeler in Broward County Court Case No. 03-21011MM10A with criminal misdemeanor battery based upon the events of June 11, 2003. On December 2, 2004, a jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Wheeler guilty of committing the criminal misdemeanor battery he had been charged with. Adjudication was withheld, and Mr. Wheeler was sentenced to a term of probation. On December 29, 2004, Mr. Wheeler resigned from employment with the Hollywood Police Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission finding that Joe L. Wheeler, violated Sections 943.13(7), and 943.1395(7) Florida Statutes (2003); dismissing the allegation that he violated Section 943.1395(6); and revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 8th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joe L. Wheeler Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds a Class "D" Security Officer license number D92- 03311. The license was issued in 1992. Beginning in 1992, the Petitioner resided with his companion, Tiatiana Aleksandrova, and their children Ruth and Ilia Shuvalov. On December 18, 1992, the Respondent and Tiatiana were arguing and he shoved Tiatiana. Daughter Ruth, 14 years old, was present and saw the incident occur. Apparently attempting to protect her mother, Ruth became involved in the altercation. At the point of her involvement, the Respondent grabbed Ruth by the arm and throat, and pushed her into the kitchen wall. Ruth, much younger and smaller than the Respondent, posed no threat of harm to him. Immediately after the December 18 incident, Tiatiana, Ruth and 12 year old Ilia went to the Gulfport, Florida, Police Department where they discussed the incident with Officer Michael J. Bieluwka. Officer Bieluwka went to the Respondent's home. The Respondent refused to cooperate in the investigation. Based on the accounts of the events provided by Tiatiana and the children, Officer Bieluwka believed he had probable cause to arrest the Respondent. He attempted to effect the arrest at the Respondent's home. As Officer Bieluwka placed the Respondent under arrest, the Respondent pulled his arm from the officer's grasp and attempted to get away from him. The Respondent was charged with resisting arrest without violence. Eventually, the Respondent entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of resisting arrest without violence. On June 22, 1993, Tiatiana and the children were asleep in the Respondent's home. Just before dawn, the Respondent entered the room where Tiatiana slept, kicked her, pulled her hair, and demanded that she get up. Based on the June 22 event, the Respondent was charged with criminal battery. He entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of battery. On July 20, 1993, the Respondent had shut off the water line to the house at the main valve. Tiatiana, attempting to bathe, went outside and turned the water back on. An argument ensued outside the house and continuing when they reentered the structure. As Tiatiana stood in the kitchen, the Respondent entered through a screen door. The door closed on and broke a drinking glass he held in his hand. He threw the broken glass towards Tiatiana. The glass struck and cut her right leg just below the knee. Based on the July 20 event, the Respondent was charged with criminal battery. He entered a plea of no contest and was convicted of battery. There is no evidence that Tiatiana posed a threat of harm to the Respondent at any time or that she consented to the violence. There is no evidence that commission of violence or use of force on any person was required to protect the Respondent or another person from physical harm.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department Of State, Division Of Licensing, enter a Final Order revoking the Class "D" Security Officer license of Edward Shuvalov, license number D92-03311, and imposing a fine of $1,500. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4482 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent's proposed recommended order is a statement of the financial hardship which will allegedly be imposed if he does not prevail in this case. The Hearing Officer's responsibility is to determine whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The imposition of penalties is governed by the Rules cited herein. The Respondent's proposed recommended order is rejected as legally irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Edward Shuvalov Post Office Box 5057 Gulfport, Florida 33737
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of correctional officers within the State of Florida. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 242571, issued to him by Petitioner. On July 16, 2005, Respondent was involved in an altercation with Chelsey Traband, the woman he lived with in Cape Coral, Florida. In the course of the altercation, items were thrown around the interior of the house, Respondent damaged a closet door and window, and clothing was thrown into the front yard. These actions, and perhaps associated noise, caused a neighbor to call the Cape Coral Police Department, and two police officers went to the scene to investigate. The officers observed bruises on Ms. Traband's left arm, a minor scratch on her right arm, and three parallel scratches on the top of her right breast, one of which was relatively deep. In a statement made to Officer Frank Antos, Ms. Traband stated that the bruises and scratches were inflicted by Respondent. At the hearing, Ms. Traband attempted to recant the statements she made to Officer Antos on July 16, 2005, claiming that he told her what to say and threatened to arrest her and take her to jail if she did not make the statements. Much of Ms. Traband's testimony was evasive and lacking in credibility. She had a motive for lying, because she still lives with Respondent and does not want him to be disciplined. Sorting Ms. Traband's credible statements from her lies, it is found that Ms. Traband started the aggression by slapping and hitting Respondent. However, at some point, Respondent straddled Ms. Traband while she was on her back on a bed, grabbed her breast and twisted it violently. Although both Respondent and Ms. Traband testified under oath at the hearing that the marks on her breast were caused when Respondent pushed Ms. Traband away from him in self defense, the testimony was not credible. It contradicts the statement Ms. Traband made on July 16, 2005, and her former statement is consistent with the marks on her breast as depicted in the photographs. On the day of the incident, Ms. Traband told Sergeant Allan Kolak that Respondent had been smoking marijuana earlier that day, and she had thrown the pipe he had used to smoke the marijuana into the field behind the house. She showed Officer Antos where to find the pipe, and he found a small wooden pipe. Sergeant Kolak testified that the pipe was the kind used to smoke marijuana, it was not the kind of pipe used to smoke tobacco, and it had a smell that he knows from his training and experience is the smell of burned marijuana. After reading Respondent his Miranda rights, Sergeant Kolak questioned Respondent about the pipe, and Respondent volunteered that he had tried to smoke the marijuana residue in the pipe earlier that day.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent Rozell L. Hester failed to maintain good moral character and ordering that his certification as a correctional officer be suspended for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue 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
