The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be placed on the convicted vendor list.
Findings Of Fact On May 31, 1990, Borden pled guilty to commission of a public entity crime, as defined by Section 287.133(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), for: a conspiracy to rig bids for the award and performance of contracts to supply milk to school boards within Peninsular Florida, lasting from the early 1970's through July, 1988; a conspiracy to rig bids for the award and performance of contracts to supply milk to school boards within the Florida Panhandle, lasting from the early 1970's through July, 1988; and a conspiracy to rig bids for the award and performance of contracts to supply dairy products for use at federal military installations within Peninsular Florida and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia, lasting from the early 1970's through July, 1988. As a corporate entity, Borden was culpable of the crimes committed by its employees or agents. However, as set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, when the crimes came to the attention of Borden's corporate management, Borden cooperated with state and federal investigations and prosecutions of the crimes, promptly terminated the employees and disassociated itself from individuals implicated in the crimes, and promptly paid the damages and penalties resulting from Borden's conviction. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, Borden notified the Department of Management Services within 30 days of its conviction. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, in addition to terminating the employees implicated in the crimes, Borden has instituted self- policing to prevent public entity crimes. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, after a period of suspension by the Defense Logistics Agency of the federal government in relation to Borden's public entity crime, the suspension was terminated, and Borden's Dairy Division has been reinstated as a qualified government contractor. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, Borden has demonstrated its good citizenship with the exception of the public entity crime of which it was convicted. As set out in more detail in the Joint Stipulation, other than the public entity crime conviction itself, there was no evidence that it is in the best interest of the public to place Borden on the convicted vendor list.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Douglas Clayton Brown (Brown), applied to Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department) , for examination as a general lines agent. By letter of September 9, 1986, the Department advised Brown that his application was denied because he had pled guilty to certain felonies which involved moral turpitude, and that he had failed to divulge on his application for examination that he had been charged with such felonies. Brown filed a timely request for formal hearing to contest the Department's decision. On March 21, 1983, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Brown with one count of burglary, Section 810.02(2) Florida Statutes; and two counts of aggravated assault, Section 784.021, Florida Statutes. Brown entered a plea of guilty to the charges. On December 12, 1983, the court entered a judgment wherein it adjudged Brown guilty of having committed one count of burglary with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court withheld the imposition of sentence, and placed Brown on 10 years probation. 1/ On August 20, 1984, Brown filed a motion in the criminal proceeding to terminate his probation and vacate the adjudication of guilt. By order of March 4, 1985, the court granted Brown's motion to vacate the adjudication of guilt, but continued his probation on the same terms and conditions as previously set. Subsequently, on March 13, 1985, the court entered a formal order that withheld adjudication of guilt and the imposition of sentence on the charges, and reimposed the term of probation previously established. By application dated March 4, 1985, filed with the Department on March 13, 1985, Brown sought examination for licensure as a general lines agent. Pertinent to this case the application requested and Brown responded: 12(a) Have you ever been charged with a felony? No Brown's application contained a material misrepresentation since he failed to disclose that he had been charged with a felony which involved moral turpitude. Brown's attempt to rationalize his nondisclosure was unpersuasive. According to Brown, he inquired of his attorney before completing his application and was advised that he could respond in the negative to the question set forth in paragraph 6, supra. Brown's assertion is not, however, supported by the proof and is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. (See: Petitioner's exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Petitioner, Douglas Clayton Brown, for examination as a general lines agent be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of June, 1987.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 18, 1996, and, if so, the penalty which 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 Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is the state agency responsible for certifying and revoking the certification of law enforcement officers. Section 943.12(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Ms. Gilbert was certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer on March 12, 1993, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 136544. On July 1, 1994, Ms. Gilbert was employed as a sworn law enforcement officer by the Metro-Dade Police Department. On July 1, 1994, Officer William Romero was employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department as a law enforcement officer. He was first employed on March 29, 1993, and was still on probation on July 1, 1994. He was working as a uniform patrol officer, and, at the time of the incident in question, he was working alone. On the evening of July 1, 1994, a black female flagged down Officer Romero while he was patrolling the neighborhood. When Officer Romero stopped, she told him that an elderly, Hispanic male was in the vicinity armed with a handgun. Officer Romero promptly confronted the person pointed out by the black female and told him to turn around. When the man did so, Officer Romero saw a revolver sticking out from the waistband of the man's trousers. Although the gun was not in the man's hand at the time, Officer Romero immediately drew his firearm and told the man to put his hands up. The man did not respond but continued to talk with very slurred speech, and he appeared intoxicated to Officer Romero. After a few moments, the man grabbed the revolver in his waistband, but it stuck, and he was not able to remove it. Officer Romero overpowered the man, and they fell to the ground and wrestled. Officer Romero was able to remove the gun from the man's waistband, and he threw it onto a nearby grassy area. Officer Romero handcuffed the man and picked up the gun. He opened the cylinder of the revolver and saw that there were no bullets in the cylinder. Officer Romero took the gun back to his patrol car, and put the suspect in the car as well. Officer Romero then called fire rescue because the man was elderly and intoxicated, and Officer Romero was concerned because they had wrestled for what seemed like several minutes. Officer Romero did not speak with the black female who had flagged him down after she initially told him about the man with the gun, nor did he interview any other persons in the area. Lieutenant Kevin Lindahl arrived on the scene immediately after Officer Romero placed the suspect in the patrol car. Officer Romero explained the situation to Lieutenant Lindahl, showed him the suspect's handgun, and specifically told him that the gun was unloaded during his altercation with the suspect. When he showed the gun to Lieutenant Lindahl, the cylinder was open, and it was obvious that there were no bullets in the gun. Lieutenant Lindahl left the scene a short time after he arrived. As Lieutenant Lindahl was leaving the scene, then- Officer Gilbert and Officer Willie McFadden arrived. These officers were the primary unit assigned to the call. At the time of the July 1, 1994, incident, Officer McFadden was on probation as a new law enforcement officer, and Officer Gilbert had recently completed her probation. They were assigned to the same squad but were not routinely assigned to work together. When they arrived at the scene, both Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert approached Officer Romero as he sat on the driver's side of his patrol car. Officer Romero told them what happened after he was flagged down; Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden were both privy to Officer Romero's remarks.2 Officer Romero gave the suspect's revolver either to Officer McFadden or to Officer Gilbert. Officer McFadden asked Officer Romero whether the gun was loaded. Officer Romero responded that the gun was not loaded, and Officer McFadden examined the gun and confirmed that the cylinder was open and that there were no bullets in the cylinder. Both Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden understood Officer Romero's statement that the gun was not loaded to refer to the time during which Officer Romero and the suspect struggled over possession of the gun, when Officer Romero took the gun from the suspect. Officer Romero turned the suspect over to Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden and then left the scene. Officer Romero sought out and spoke with his acting sergeant, Officer Sandra Leon. He told her about the incident and advised her that Lieutenant Lindahl had appeared at the scene. During this conversation, Officer Romero told Officer Leon that there were no bullets in the gun. It was important to him because he was a rookie police officer and the July 1 incident was the first time he had confronted an armed suspect; he was nervous because he almost shot the suspect. Officer McFadden spoke with several witnesses at the scene who told him that the suspect's revolver had been loaded at some point during the afternoon and that the bullets had been removed from the gun. He was also told that the suspect had put the gun to someone's head and pulled the trigger twice but that the gun did not discharge. Officer McFadden "asked around for the bullets; no one could give me the bullets. And I immediately said then the gun is unloaded, we can't find any bullets."3 None of the witnesses Officer McFadden interviewed told him that the suspect had discharged the gun before Officer Romero arrived. Officer McFadden did not interview witnesses in the house in front of which the altercation took place. Rather, he stayed with the suspect while Officer Gilbert went into the house and spoke with several witnesses. She was told by Brenda Smith, the woman who had flagged down Officer Romero, that, earlier in the afternoon, the suspect had discharged the firearm into the air outside the house. Ms. Smith also told Officer Gilbert that the suspect entered the house after discharging the gun, pointed the gun at her and another person in the house, and pulled the trigger twice; the gun did not fire but just clicked when the hammer fell. Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert stayed at the scene about 30 or 40 minutes. They discussed the offenses with which to charge the suspect and began preparing the required paperwork, which consisted of the arrest affidavit, the offense/incident report, and the property receipt. During the discussion at the scene, Officer McFadden raised the possibility of charging the suspect with the offense of "using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances" (hereinafter "using a firearm while under the influence"), a crime defined in Section 790.151, Florida Statutes (1993), and identified as a first degree misdemeanor. Officer McFadden looked up the offense in the police manual setting forth crimes and their elements.4 The focus of discussion between Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden was the statutory requirement that the firearm be loaded; they did not discuss whether the charge was appropriate in light of the fact that the offense was a misdemeanor. Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert continued discussing the offense of using a firearm while under the influence as they drove the suspect to the Dade County Jail and as they completed the arrest affidavit, which they did while sitting in the patrol car in the jail parking lot. Officer Gilbert told Officer McFadden during this discussion that a witness had told her that the suspect had discharged the gun earlier in the afternoon, before Officer Romero arrived on the scene. Officer Gilbert believed that it was appropriate to charge the suspect with this offense because he was intoxicated and because she had been told that the gun had been discharged during the afternoon. Since she had been told that the gun had been discharged, Officer Gilbert reasoned that the gun had been loaded at some point during the afternoon, a fact which was corroborated by the witness statement given to Officer McFadden. Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden agreed to charge the suspect with the offense of using a firearm while under the influence.5 Officer Gilbert filled out the arrest affidavit in the jail parking lot, in Officer McFadden's presence. She included the charge of using a firearm while under the influence, and she inserted the phrase "since the gun was loaded" into the narrative portion of the arrest affidavit, squeezing it in at the end of one line of printing as she was editing and completing the affidavit. As revised, the narrative in the completed arrest affidavit contains the following sentence: "V-01 advised that he and V-02 was in fear of their life being taken [when the suspect pointed the gun at them and pulled the trigger] since the weapon was loaded." Officer Gilbert did not mention in the arrest affidavit narrative that the witness Brenda Smith had told her that the suspect had discharged the revolver earlier in the afternoon. Before they left the patrol car, Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden signed both pages of the affidavit, attesting by their signatures that "I swear that the above Statement is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief."6 The offenses set forth in the arrest affidavit when Officer Gilbert and Officer McFadden signed it in the parking lot of the jail were aggravated assault, discharging a firearm in public,7 carrying a concealed firearm, resisting arrest, and using a firearm while under the influence. Probable cause existed to arrest the suspect regardless of whether the offense of using a firearm while under the influence was properly charged. Although Officer McFadden had searched the suspect at the scene, he was searched again by the corrections officers at the jail. This search produced a knife and six bullets, which were found in the suspect's clothing. Officer Gilbert was told that these items were on the suspect's person, and, based on the information that the suspect was carrying a knife, she added to the arrest affidavit the charge of carrying a concealed weapon. Officer McFadden was aware that Officer Gilbert added the concealed weapon charge, which he considered an appropriate charge under the circumstances. The arrest affidavit was turned in at the jail. Officer McFadden completed the first page of the required offense/incident report at the station, after he and Officer Gilbert left the suspect at the jail.8 He included the charge of using a firearm while under the influence, and he cited the charge to Section 790.151, Florida Statutes. Officer McFadden claimed that he was not aware that he had included that offense in the report, that he was simply copying the information from the arrest affidavit completed by Officer Gilbert without thinking about what he was writing.9 At some point, Officer McFadden stopped working on the offense/incident report and began completing the property report. While Officer McFadden was preparing the property report, Officer Gilbert completed the narrative portion of the offense/incident report. Although Brenda Smith was listed in the report as a witness, Officer Gilbert did not mention in the narrative that Ms. Smith had reported that the suspect had discharged the gun during the afternoon, nor did she include in this narrative any statement regarding whether the gun was loaded or unloaded. Officer Gilbert cannot explain these omissions. As acting sergeant and the supervisor of Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert on July 1, 1994, Officer Sandra Leon was responsible for reviewing the offense/incident report at issue in this proceeding and ensuring that all of the information provided was complete and correct. Officer Leon reviewed the offense/incident report on the evening of July 1, 1994, and she noticed that the offense of using a firearm while intoxicated was included in the report. She was not familiar with this offense, so she looked up the statute defining the offense. She noted that an element of the offense was that the firearm be loaded, and she remembered that Officer Romero had told her that the gun was not loaded when he struggled with the suspect. Nonetheless, without speaking with either Officer McFadden or Officer Gilbert, Officer Leon signed the offense/incident report and forwarded it through channels pursuant to the usual procedures. At the time she signed the report, Officer Leon knew that the narrative did not include all of the elements of the offense of using a firearm while under the influence, and she recalled that Officer Romero had told her that the gun was not loaded at the time he arrested the suspect. The next day, in a brief encounter, Officer Leon "casually" asked Officer Gilbert whether the gun was loaded.10 According to Officer Leon, Officer Gilbert responded affirmatively, and Officer Leon did not pursue the matter any further with Officer Gilbert. Officer Leon and Officer Gilbert did not engage in a conversation regarding the offense/incident report, and Officer Leon asked Officer Gilbert only the one question. Shortly after she spoke with Officer Gilbert, Officer Leon spoke with Officer McFadden about the condition of the gun because he had also signed the offense/incident report. According to Officer Leon, Officer McFadden appeared "visibly upset" during this conversation, and Officer Leon attributed this to the fact that, because he had signed the offense/incident report, he and Officer Gilbert were "equally at fault."11 Officer McFadden told Officer Leon that the gun was not loaded. Finally, Officer Leon spoke again with Officer Romero, who confirmed that the gun was not loaded when he took it from the suspect. Four or five days later, Officer Leon brought the matter to the attention of Lieutenant Lindahl, who had taken several days off from work after the July 1 incident. Officer Leon went to Lieutenant Lindahl because, even though she had signed and submitted the offense/incident report, she was concerned that there was a problem with charging the suspect with the offense of using a firearm while under the influence. Officer Leon told Lieutenant Lindahl that she had asked Officer Gilbert about the condition of the gun and that Officer Gilbert told her that it was loaded. Lieutenant Lindahl then had a copy of the arrest affidavit sent to his office via facsimile.12 Lieutenant Lindahl reviewed the arrest affidavit and questioned Officer Romero and Officer McFadden about the condition of the gun. Officer Romero reiterated his story that the gun was not loaded when he took it from the suspect. Officer McFadden told Lieutenant Lindahl that he had told Officer Gilbert repeatedly that the charge of using a firearm while under the influence was improper because the gun was not loaded, but he did not tell Lieutenant Lindahl that Officer Gilbert had told him that a witness reported that the suspect had discharged the gun before Officer Romero arrived at the scene. Lieutenant Lindahl did not ask Officer Gilbert why the charge of using a firearm while under the influence was included on the arrest affidavit and in the offense/incident report. Rather, he decided it was appropriate to refer the matter to the police department's internal affairs section, and he promptly filed a complaint against Officer Gilbert.13 Lieutenant Lindahl based his decision to file the complaint against Officer Gilbert on the statements of Officer Romero and of Officer McFadden. Lieutenant Lindahl concluded that Officer Gilbert included the charge of using a firearm while under the influence in the arrest affidavit even though she knew that the gun was not loaded and that this was an essential element of the offense. Lieutenant Lindahl testified that, if the gun had in fact been discharged, the charge of using a firearm while under the influence "would have been appropriate."14 Lieutenant Lindahl did not speak with Officer Gilbert after he filed the complaint because she was the subject of an internal affairs investigation, and it would have been improper for him to interfere in the investigation by talking with her. It is not unusual for arresting officers to charge a suspect with an offense when all of the elements of the offense are not present. If a charge included in an arrest affidavit is not appropriate, the responsible police officers bring it to the attention of the assistant state attorney handling the case, who sees that the unsupported charge is stricken from the arrest affidavit. When Officer McFadden and Officer Gilbert met with the assistant state attorney at what is called the "prefile conference" to discuss the arrest on July 1, 1994, they asked the assistant state attorney whether, in his opinion, the charge of using a firearm while under the influence should be stricken from the arrest affidavit because the gun was not loaded. The assistant state attorney reviewed the statute and concluded that the charge should be dropped. On October 20, 1994, Officer Gilbert gave a sworn statement to the internal affairs investigator for the Metro-Dade Police Department. In that statement, Officer Gilbert testified that she overheard Officer Romero state that the gun was unloaded at the time of the altercation; that she and Officer McFadden agreed to charge the suspect with using a firearm while under the influence; that the charge and the phrase "since the gun was loaded" were on the arrest affidavit before Officer McFadden signed the affidavit; and that she never spoke with Officer Leon about the offense/incident report. The evidence presented by the Commission is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Gilbert knowingly made a false statement that was intended to mislead when she included in the arrest affidavit the offense of using a firearm while under the influence and inserted in the affidavit the phrase "since the gun was loaded." Rather, based upon the consideration of all of the evidence presented herein and upon the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the persuasive evidence supports the finding that Ms. Gilbert acted in good faith when she included the charge and the phrase "since the gun was loaded" in the arrest affidavit. It was Officer Gilbert's understanding from the statement of Brenda Smith that the suspect had discharged his gun prior to the arrival of Officer Romero and that the suspect was intoxicated when he did so, and Officer McFadden agreed with Ms. Gilbert that the offense of using a firearm while under the influence could appropriately be charged.15 In any event, Ms. Gilbert's use of the phrase "since the gun was loaded" in the arrest affidavit was, under the circumstances, ambiguous. Pursuant to her testimony, which is credited, Officer Gilbert assumed that, because the suspect discharged the gun, the gun had, at some point, been loaded; Officer Leon and Lieutenant Lindahl assumed that the phrase referred to the time period in which the suspect was involved in the altercation with Officer Romero. The first opportunity Officer Gilbert was given to explain what she meant by the phrase was in the sworn statement she gave on October 20, 1994. The evidence presented by the Commission is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Gilbert gave false statements, which she did not believe to be true, in her sworn statement given on October 20, 1994, to the Metro-Dade Police Department's internal affairs investigator. First, the conflicts in the testimony of Officer McFadden and Ms. Gilbert have been resolved on the basis of the evidence presented herein, and the persuasive evidence supports the finding that Ms. Gilbert did not make a false statement under oath when she stated that Officer McFadden signed the arrest affidavit after she included the offense of using a firearm while under the influence and inserted the phrase "since the gun was loaded." Second, contrary to the position taken by the Commission, Ms. Gilbert did state in the October 20, 1994, sworn statement that she had overheard Officer Romero state that the gun was not loaded when the suspect was arrested. Third, although Ms. Gilbert's testimony in her sworn statement that she had never discussed the report with Officer Leon conflicts with Officer Leon's testimony that she asked Officer Gilbert if the gun was loaded, it is reasonable to infer that, due to the brief, casual nature of Officer Leon's inquiry to Ms. Gilbert and the length of time which elapsed between the incident and her sworn statement, Ms. Gilbert simply forgot that Officer Leon had asked her that one question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Hawanda Gilbert dated June 28, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 11th day of June, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services improperly awarded a contract to National Health Laboratories, Inc. for the reasons set forth in the petition.
Findings Of Fact By Invitation to Bid mailed March 26, 1993 (ITB), the Dade County Public Health Unit requested bids on an annual contract for the performance of clinical laboratory test services. The Dade County Public Health Unit is under the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The contracting agency shall hereafter be referred to as HRS. The ITB called for the opening of bids on April 12, 1993. Six bids were timely submitted. The apparent low bid was submitted by National Health Laboratories, Inc. (NHL). The NHL bid was $202,271. The second low bid was submitted by Continental Medical Laboratory, Inc. (CML). The CML bid was $241,100. HRS issued a notice of intent to award the contract to NHL. CML timely protested. There is no issue as to the responsiveness of the CML bid. The only issue as to the responsiveness of the NHL bid concerns the matters raised by CML. CML's petition alleges that the bid of NHL was defective because the Sworn Statement Pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes, on Public Entity Crimes (Public Entity Crime Affidavit) was incomplete, an agreement attached to the Public Entity Crime Affidavit did not relieve NHL from disqualification concerning CHAMPUS fraud, and NHL should be disqualified from bidding because it failed timely to inform the Department of Management Services of the company's conviction of a public entity crime. Paragraph 10 of the General Conditions of the ITB allows HRS to "waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." However, special conditions provide, in part: PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES Any person submitting a bid or proposal in response to this invitation must execute the enclosed [Public Entity Affidavit], including proper check(s), in the space(s) provided, and enclose it with the bid/proposal. Failure to complete this form in every detail and submit it with your proposal will result in immediate disqualification of your bid. The Public Entity Crime Affidavit completed by NHL and submitted with its bid was executed and notarized on April 9, 1993. Paragraph six of the form affidavit states: Based on information and belief, the statement which I have marked below is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement. [Indicate which statement applies.] Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, nor any affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of an entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. However, there has been a subsequent proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings and the Final Order entered by the Hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the convicted vendor list. [attach a copy of the final order] The next paragraph of the Public Entity Crime Affidavit form states: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH I (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY AND, THAT THIS FORM IS VALID THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVIDED IN SECTION 287.017, FLORIDA STATUTES FOR CATEGORY TWO OF ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FORM. In completing the Public Entity Crime Affidavit, NHL penned in, just over the second alternative that discloses a conviction, "See Attached." The attachment was a copy of an Agreement dated December 31, 1992, between NHL and the "state of Florida" (Settlement Agreement). The agreement was executed by an NHL officer and the Director, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Auditor General Office. The Auditor General's Office is not part of the Department of Management Services. The Settlement Agreement concerns invoices from NHL to the Florida Medicaid program for certain cholesterol and iron tests from January 1, 1987, through November 30, 1992. The Settlement Agreement requires NHL to pay as restitution to the State of Florida $1,470,917. In return, the state of Florida, for itself and on behalf of its agents and assigns, will release and forever discharge NHL, its current or former officers, directors, employees, agents, shareholders, affiliates, assigns and successors from any and all claims, actions, demands or causes of action including penalties or interest against any of them, either civil or criminal, as regards Medicaid reimbursement [for certain cholesterol and iron tests] between January 1, 1987 and November 30, 1992, except that nothing contained in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude the state Medicaid program from seeking recoupment of payments made [for certain cholesterol tests] during the period covered by this Settlement Agreement, subject to the understanding that NHL will contest any such recoupment action on the grounds that such payments were appropriate. The Settlement Agreement also provides: The state of Florida agrees that neither the Settlement Agreement nor any federal criminal conviction or other sanction of the corporation or a current or former officer or employee of NHL as regards claims for Medicaid reimbursement [for certain cholesterol and iron tests] [b]etween January 1, 1987 and November 30, 1992 will be the basis for a state exclusion of NHL from the Florida Medicaid program. NHL is a company that provides laboratory testing nationally and receives payment for many of its services from government sources, such as Medicaid, Medicare, or CHAMPUS. CHAMPUS is the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. During the period of 1987 through 1992, NHL supplied certain cholesterol and iron testing, in addition to that specifically requested by the health-care provider, at little or no cost to the health-care provider. But NHL invoiced various government payors at higher rates. On December 18, 1992, NHL entered guilty pleas to two counts of criminal fraud involving these practices as they concern the CHAMPUS program. These pleas were the bases of a conviction and sentence that included a criminal fine of $1,000,000. One or two former officers entered guilty pleas to charges of criminal fraud involving these practices as they concern the Medicaid program. As part of the settlement, NHL paid the United States the sum of $100,000,000. At the same time, NHL was negotiating with various states, including Florida, with respect to the above-described billing practices. On December 8, 1992, the Director of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Florida Office of the Auditor General wrote a letter to NHL confirming a proposed settlement. The conditions of the settlement are incorporated in the above- described Settlement Agreement. On December 17, 1992, the Assistant Secretary for Medicaid in HRS mailed a letter to NHL agreeing that HRS would not take administrative action for the above-described cholesterol and iron claims submitted for reimbursement by NHL to the Florida Medicaid program. NHL did not inform the Department of Management Services of the guilty plea, conviction, and $1,000,000 criminal fine. However, based probably on information received in early February 1993 from another governmental entity in Florida, the Department of Management Services, on February 8, 1993, sent a letter to NHL advising it that the Department had received information that NHL had been convicted of a public entity crime and requesting copies of the charges and final court action. NHL complied and the Department's investigation is continuing. On February 18, 1993, HRS Deputy Secretary for Health, sent a memorandum to all of the County Public Health Units directors and administrators advising them of concerns about laboratory fraud and attaching a recent report concerning the NHL case. The report described the NHL guilty pleas, conviction, and sentencing, as well as the business practices that led to the prosecution. By memorandum dated March 18, 1993, HRS Assistant Secretary for Medicaid informed HRS Depute Secretary for Health that the Auditor General had entered into the Settlement Agreement. The memorandum states that, on December 17, 1992, the Assistant Secretary signed an agreement with NHL not to terminate it from the Florida Medicaid program, which was the "same treatment afforded many other providers--including [County Public Health Units]--who overbilled the Medicaid program. The Assistant Secretary's memorandum describes the settlement as requiring NHL to make "full restitution," although the $1.4 million in restitution involves only the iron test and the State of Florida and NHL may still litigate whether any reimbursement is due for the cholesterol tests. The failure of NHL to check the second alternative on the Public Entity Crime Affidavit did not confer an economic advantage on NHL in the subject procurement. The material attached to the affidavit sufficiently informed HRS of the criminal conviction of NHL. Likewise, the omission of any mention of CHAMPUS claims in Paragraphs two and three of the Settlement Agreement did not confer any economic advantage on NHL in the procurement. The purpose of mentioning only Medicaid in the Settlement Agreement is that Florida has no jurisdiction over the CHAMPUS program. NHL was concerned only that Florida not terminate NHL's participation in the program over which Florida had jurisdiction--the Medicaid program. These references to "Medicaid reimbursement" are merely descriptive and are not intended to limit the scope of the exoneration purportedly effectuated in the Settlement Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Continental Medical Laboratory, Inc. ENTERED on August 24, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3951BID Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent and Intervenor 1-8 and 11: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10 and 12-15: rejected as subordinate. 16-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32-37: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 38-43 and 45-48: rejected as irrelevant and legal argument. 44: adopted. 49-50: adopted as to absence of material variations. 51: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-14 and 16-17: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as legal argument and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-21: rejected as subordinate, repetitious, and legal argument. 22-27: adopted in substance. 28: rejected as irrelevant. 29 (first sentence): rejected as repetitious and irrelevant. 29 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted, but the period of the delay of DMS review in this case was too short to make any difference. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence with respect to a delay of such a short duration. 32: rejected as legal argument inviting a remedy far in excess of any remedy provided for or envisioned by 287.133. 33: rejected as legal argument inviting a remedy far in excess of any remedy provided for or envisioned by 287.133, at least under the facts of the present case. 34: rejected as irrelevant. 35: rejected as legal argument and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey Kirk Adorno & Zeder, P.A. 2601 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 1600 Miami, Florida 33133 Morton Laitner, District Counsel District 11 Legal Office 401 NW 2d Ave., Ste. N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Thomas F. Panza Seann Michael Frazier Panza, Maurer 3081 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste. 200 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, by committing the felony of armed trespass while employed as a deputy sheriff, failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as an employee of the Petitioner, and, if so, whether the termination of the Respondent's employment was consistent with applicable disciplinary policy.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a deputy sheriff. The Respondent had been employed for 12 to 13 years as a law enforcement officer prior to his employment with the Petitioner. He was employed by the Petitioner for more than six years prior to the termination at issue in this proceeding. In September 2009, two undercover law enforcement officers, one of whom was the Respondent, went from a public alleyway through a privacy fence and into the private backyard property of a Pinellas County citizen. The entry occurred at night. The alley and backyard area were unlit. The Respondent was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt and was armed with a gun. The officers had no search warrant authorizing their entry onto the private property. The Respondent's entry into the private backyard was an act of trespass. The commission of a trespass while armed constitutes a third degree felony. The Respondent did not report the trespass to any superior officer within the Petitioner's chain of command. The Respondent has asserted that he was merely following the other officer's lead on the night when the trespass occurred and did not think that he had acted improperly. During a deposition for an unrelated criminal case, the Respondent was questioned about whether he had observed another officer engage in a similar trespass. The Respondent resisted answering the question, sought legal advice from an assistant state attorney, and then declined to answer the question. Even after being questioned about the issue during the deposition, the Respondent still failed to report the incident to any superior officer within the chain of command. After a complaint of misconduct was filed against the Respondent, the Petitioner commenced an administrative investigation. During the investigation, the Respondent acknowledged the trespass, but attempted to minimize his participation in the incident and to assign responsibility for the trespass to the other law enforcement officer. Bob Gualtieri, the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is responsible for operation of the Petitioner and is authorized to impose discipline on the Petitioner's employees who violate rules or regulations adopted by the Petitioner in accordance with a Civil Service Act. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 3-1 to establish a standard of conduct for the Petitioner's employees and has categorized misconduct into disciplinary levels based on the severity of a transgression. "Level 5" violations reflect serious misconduct. The Respondent's participation in the felony trespass and his failure to report the incident to his superiors constitute separate level 5 violations. The Respondent violated Rule 5.4, which requires that employees be aware of their assigned duties and responsibilities and take prompt and effective action in carrying them out. The Respondent violated Rule 5.5, which requires that employees observe and obey all laws and ordinances and report violations by written memorandum upon their first duty shift following a violation. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 10-2 to establish a point system to be followed by the Petitioner's Administrative Review Board for the imposition of discipline based on adopted guidelines. The Respondent has accumulated 75 disciplinary points, 60 of which are based on the trespass incident underlying this proceeding. Termination from employment is within the range of discipline established by the Petitioner's rules and procedures applicable to the facts of this case. The Respondent has asserted that the sheriff's exercise of discretion in terminating his employment was severe and unreasonable. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The basis for the Respondent's termination was the Respondent's commission of the felony of armed trespass and his failure to inform any superior officer within the chain of command of the incident. The sheriff's decision to terminate the Respondent from employment was clearly warranted. There is no evidence that the sheriff inappropriately applied the Petitioner's rules and procedures or that any similarly-situated employee has been subjected to lesser discipline by Sheriff Gualtieri for comparable conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order terminating the Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Carole Sanzeri, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of trust.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with protecting vulnerable persons, such as Medicaid recipients and the Medicaid program, and, in that capacity, it maintains discretion to approve or deny requests for exemption from disqualification. Petitioner is seeking to work as a certified nursing assistant. Petitioner’s employment goals require her to have a Level 2 criminal background screening to ensure she does not have any disqualifying offenses to prohibit her from working with AHCA-regulated facilities. Petitioner’s background screening of February 5, 2020, identified the following five criminal offenses: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting executive officer with minor injury. By letter dated February 5, 2020, AHCA notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to the disqualifying offense of “04/22/2017 Sheriff’s Office San Diego, Obstruct/Resist Exec Off.” The letter also informed Petitioner that she may be eligible to apply for an exemption from disqualification and how to apply. On or around February 7, 2020, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption from disqualification and supporting documentation to AHCA. By letter dated February 18, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption. On April 6, 2020, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Exemption (“exemption package”) to AHCA. Petitioner’s exemption package contained documentation including employment history, education/training, a criminal history report, arrest reports, investigation reports, a California Department of Public Health investigation report, and a 12-month suspension of nurse assistant certification. By letter dated April 7, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption, stating Petitioner is not eligible for the exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: ELDER/DEP ADULT CRUELTY, Case number CN3772399 Petitioner contested the denial and requested a formal administrative hearing. AHCA acknowledged the disqualifying offense error in the denial letter of April 7, 2020, and corrected its denial letter. The corrected denial letter dated September 8, 2020, deemed Petitioner not eligible for an exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: Corrected Disqualifying Offense: 04/22/2017 SHERIFF’S OFFICE SAN DIEGO, RESISTING AN OFFICER (California Penal Code section 148,) Case Number CN372399. Hearing At hearing, Petitioner testified about the incident that occurred on April 22, 2017, while working at Fallbrook Skilled Nursing (“Fallbrook”) in California. Petitioner explained that three police officers came to her job at Fallbrook while she was working her shift and asked to speak to her outside the facility about allegations of resident abuse. Petitioner testified she refused to leave the facility upon multiple instructions from the police to leave. Petitioner admitted that after an officer told her several times he was going to arrest her, she told the police “you don’t have a right to arrest me.” Petitioner detailed how she did not allow the police to put handcuffs on her because she believed the reports about her were lies. Ultimately, the incident escalated--Petitioner testified that when she did not allow the police to handcuff her, the three police officers put her on the ground, one put his knee on her back, and she was handcuffed. Petitioner weighed approximately 125 pounds when arrested. After the police got Petitioner outside, the three police officers picked her up, put her in the police car, and took her to jail. Petitioner was charged with: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting an officer, all stemming from the same April 22, 2017, incident. The elder abuse and trespass charges against Lalanne were dismissed. On January 30, 2018, Petitioner proceeded to a bench trial before a judge on the resisting an officer charge. At trial, Petitioner was found guilty and convicted of “count 1 PC 148 (a)(1), resisting an officer” in case number CN372399. That same day, the judge sentenced Petitioner to three years’ probation2 and community service for the resisting an officer conviction. Subsequently, the County of San Diego, California, probation department provided Petitioner a certificate of completion for completing her three days of public work service on or about September 13, 2018. Petitioner testified that she made a mistake when she did not listen to the officers and it was a lesson for her. She also testified that she believed there was no harm to the police and her offense is a misdemeanor not a felony. Vanessa Risch (“Risch”), AHCA’s operations and management consultant manager in the Background Screening Unit, testified that because Petitioner’s offense occurred in California, AHCA had to evaluate the nature of the offense, what occurred during the incident, and the final outcome of the case to determine the correlating criminal offense in Florida. Risch testified that she contacted the California Clerk of Courts to validate the outcome of Petitioner’s case and probationary status. Risch testified that, through her investigation, she confirmed that Petitioner’s probation started on January 30, 2018, and terminates on January 30, 2021. Risch also detailed how AHCA converted Petitioner’s California resisting an officer charge to a Florida resisting arrest with violence felony offense, after determining the officers in California had to force Petitioner’s body to the ground after Petitioner did not comply with the officers’ repeated instructions. AHCA concluded that Petitioner’s actions of opposing the three 2 The compelling evidence at hearing supports Petitioner’s probationary sentence. The undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to testify honestly and forthright regarding her three-year probationary period. First, Petitioner denied knowledge of any probationary period even though probation was listed on the sentencing documents Petitioner presented as Exhibit 1. Also, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 is from the probation department. Additionally, Petitioner testified that her lawyer told her she had probation, which confirms Petitioner’s knowledge of her probationary period. officers is equivalent to the criminal offense of resisting arrest with violence in Florida. Risch testified that resisting an officer with violence is a disqualifying felony offense. Risch testified further that AHCA ultimately concluded that Petitioner was not eligible to apply for an exemption. Risch explained that Petitioner’s current probationary status prohibited her from being eligible to apply for an exemption because eligibility starts three years after Petitioner’s probationary period for the disqualifying felony offense is terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order denying Shaddainah Lalanne’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 9th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaddainah Sherly Lalanne Apartment 206 6609 Woods Island Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 (eServed) Katie Jackson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Bill Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shevaun L. Harris, Acting Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Melvin Roberts, was born on July 14, 1967. He was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 1, 1993, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 151525. Respondent has been employed as a certified correctional officer with the Florida Department of Corrections since January 29, 1993. On October 28, 1994, Officer Elise Dillard-Gonzalez of the Miami-Dade Police Department was working as part of an undercover prostitution sting at Southwest 8th Street and 69 Avenue. At approximately 11:10 p.m., Respondent, who was alone, pulled over to the curb and motioned to her to approach his vehicle. When she did, he requested a "fuck for $20." She signaled to the undercover officers across the street, and Respondent was arrested for soliciting prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. On November 10, 1994, Officer Sonja Crespo of the City of Miami Police Department was working as part of an undercover prostitution sting at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 73rd Street in Miami. Respondent, who was alone, approached her and gestured at her by placing a finger on one hand through a circle made by the fingers on his other hand. When she went over to Respondent's vehicle, he offered her $20 for a "fuck." She signaled to other near-by police officers, and Respondent was arrested for soliciting prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. Rather than going forward on the charges for the two arrests, the State Attorney's Office agreed to place Respondent in some type of pre-trial diversionary program. Respondent was suspended from his employment with the Florida Department of Corrections for 10 consecutive days beginning April 17, 1995, for failing to report his arrests to his employer within 3 days and for being arrested, conduct unbecoming a correctional officer. Other than the October and November 1994 arrests, Respondent has not been arrested. Other than the disciplinary action imposed in April 1995, Respondent has had no disciplinary action taken against him as a correctional officer for the State of Florida. The superintendent at the Dade Correctional Institution where Respondent is employed considers Respondent to be a good employee and would like to continue Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, finding mitigating factors to be present, and suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for 20 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 7th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The 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.
