Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "C" Private Investigator License, license number C86-00509. The Respondent has held that license at all times material to this proceeding. On July 4, 1994, the Respondent intentionally struck N.S. (a minor) with a flashlight. The striking of N.S. took place immediately after, and was in response to, N.S.'s act of kicking the Respondent while the Respondent was on a stairway landing and was in reasonable fear that his attacker (N.S.) might push him down the stairs. Under the circumstances, the Respondent's act of striking N.S. was a reasonable act of self-defense in the lawful protection of himself from physical harm.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued in this proceeding dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 1550 _ MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5321 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the details regarding the criminal prosecution of the Respondent are not competent substantial evidence of the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.) Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: The Respondent's proposed recommended order does not contain any specific portion designated as "findings of fact." Rather, the Respondent has intertwined his proposed findings, his proposed conclusions, and his arguments throughout his proposal. It appears to be sufficient to note that the findings of fact in this recommended order are generally consistent with the substance of the Respondent's version of the facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine Assistant General Counsel Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Stephen A. Shields 9441 Southwest 4th Street, Number 311 Miami, Florida 33174 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
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 1991, Dale McClellan was convicted of a one count violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for conduct that occurred on or before August 8, 1986. Dale McClellan's conviction arose out of an investigation initiated by the Florida Attorney General in 1987 into possible bid rigging of school requirements contracts in Florida by thirteen dairies and distributors. In 1988, the Attorney General filed a civil action against these 13 dairies and distributors. In 1987, the United States Attorney General began an investigation into the same conduct pursuant to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Pursuant to paragraphs 287.133(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, M & B Products, Inc. and Dale McClellan made timely notification to the Department of Management Services (DMS) and provided details of the convictions. On September 6, 1995, DMS issued a notice of intent pursuant to Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)1., Florida Statutes. On September 29, 1995, pursuant to Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)2., Florida Statutes, M & B Products, Inc. and Dale McClellan timely filed a petition for formal administrative hearing pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to determine whether it is in the public interest for M & B Products, Inc. and Dale McClellan to be placed on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3., Florida Statutes, establishes factors which, if applicable to a convicted vendor, will mitigate against placement of that vendor upon the convicted vendor list. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.e., Florida Statutes, establishes "cooperation with a State or Federal investigation into a public entity case as a mitigating factor against placement on the convicted vendor list." Dale McClellan was notified of an Investigative Demand by the Attorney General's Office in 1987. On December 14, 1987, Phillip Hall, Esquire, a representative of the Attorney General, State of Florida, reviewed records of two companies operated by Dale McClellan. These records were voluntarily produced by Mr. McClellan. Subsequent to Phillip Hall reviewing business records of Dale McClellan, copies of a portion of said records were voluntarily provided to the Florida Attorney General's Office. Dale McClellan met with representatives of the Attorney General's Office in January of 1988 and gave a statement in cooperation of their investigation, to Richard Arnold, Esquire, and Assistant Attorney General Jerome Hoffman. In November 1987, Dale McClellan cooperated with the Federal Grand Jury in Atlanta, Georgia, producing ten (10) boxes of records in response to a subpoena directed at his business. In March 1991, prior to his conviction in Federal Court, Dale McClellan cooperated with Federal Prosecutors at a meeting arranged by them in Atlanta, Georgia. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.d., Florida Statutes, provides prompt payment of any damages or penalty as the result of the conviction as a mitigating factor against placement on the convicted vendor list. Dale McClellan paid a penalty of $2,500.00 imposed by Judge William Castagna, on June 19, 1991. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.e., Florida Statutes, establishes the nature and details of the public entity crime as a mitigatory factor. Dale McClellan's violation consisted of supplying milk to 11 schools in Hillsborough County, Florida, through his company, M & B Dairy. Dale McClellan in the 1985-86 school year supplied 210 cases of half-pint milk cartons per day at a gross profit of less than one cent per carton. M & B Dairy went out of business in 1988. Pet, Inc., Southland Corporation, Borden, Inc. and Land-O-Sun Dairies, Inc., defendants in the federal court case (each convicted and fined several million dollars, sold tens of millions of dollars worth of milk to schools and federal government installations. Dale McClellan's involvement, in comparison, was very minor. Section 287.133(e)(e)3.e., Florida Statutes, establishes disassociation from other persons or affiliates convicted of public entity crimes as a mitigating factor in determining whether to place a person or entity on the convicted vendor list. Dale McClellan has not associated with any person convicted of a public entity crime. Section 287.133(3)(e)e.g., Florida Statutes, establishes self policing by the person to prevent public entity crimes as a mitigating factor in determining whether to place a person or entity on the convicted vendor list. M & B Products, Inc. has instituted policies that prohibit any employee from discussing, even casually, the bidding on or bidding strategies concerning school requirements contracts. In addition, Dale McClellan has resigned as an officer in M & B Products, Inc. Section 287.133(3)(e)e.j., Florida Statutes, states that the need of public entities for additional competition in the procurement of goods and services in their respective markets is a mitigating factor in determining whether to place a person on the convicted vendor list. Since the conclusion of the State and Federal investigation, many suppliers and distributors have discontinued business and there is a great need for competition in this area. M & B Products, Inc. is a significant factor in providing such competition and has helped lower prices in the areas where it supplies his product. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.e., Florida Statutes, establishes good citizenship as a mitigating factor, in determining whether to place a person on the convicted vendor list. In May 1991, Dale McClellan received a Certificate of Recognition from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office for his support of law enforcement and crime prevention. Dale McClellan has assisted persons addicted to alcohol by helping through a church sponsored Alcoholics Anonymous program, and helped found "301 House," an AA program in East Hillsborough County. He is still active in helping and counselling alcoholics.
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2006-2008),1/ and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, John McAlpin, is a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued law enforcement certification No. 148408. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has served as the Chief of Police of Sneads, Florida. At the time of the allegations giving rise to this case, A.G. was a 14-year-old girl from Sneads, Florida. At the start of the events at issue in this case, A.G. lived with her mother, Christina Simpson (now known as Christina Griffin); her step- father, Shelly Simpson; and her younger half-brother. On January 24, 2007, the Abuse Hotline of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) received a call regarding the possible sexual abuse of A.G. by her step-father. A.G. was interviewed that same day by Amy Bates, a Child Protective Investigator, while she was still at school. Once A.G. indicated that she had been sexually abused, the initial interview was terminated, and Ms. Bates contacted Ms. Simpson for permission to have A.G. interviewed by the Child Protection Team (CPT). After receiving permission from her mother, A.G. was transported to the DCF offices and interviewed by a member of the CPT. Her CPT interview was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Ms. Bates attempted to contact Respondent prior to the CPT interview so that, consistent with the Department's customary practice, law enforcement could observe the interview. At the time A.G.'s mother arrived at the DCF offices, Ms. Bates had not heard from Chief McAlpin, so she asked Lieutenant Daniels of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department (JCSO) to observe the interview as a courtesy to the Sneads Police Department (SPD). Lt. Daniels was already present at the DCF offices for reasons unrelated to this case. In the interview by the CPT team member, A.G. indicated that she had been molested by her stepfather, Shelly Simpson, over a period of two years, during which he touched her inappropriately and tried, without success, to have sex with her. She stated that the most recent times he had molested her were the morning of the interview, and over the Martin Luther King Day weekend. The CPT interview began at 3:15 p.m. and lasted approximately 45 minutes. At 4:00 p.m., Ms. Bates again attempted to call Chief McAlpin at SPD and was given his cell phone number, which she also called. After speaking with A.G.'s mother, Ms. Bates again called the police station at 4:28 to get an officer to accompany her to the home to meet with the stepfather. Only after contacting Lieutenant Daniels for assistance did she receive a call indicating that someone would meet her at the office of the SPD to go to the Simpson home. Ms. Bates and Ms. Simpson went to the police station where they met Officer Jarrett Tyus of the SPD. At that time, a copy of the CPT interview was left on Chief McAlpin's desk. The three adults proceeded to the Simpson's home: A.G. did not accompany them but instead went home with her aunt. Officer Tyus, Ms. Bates, and Ms. Simpson arrived at the Simpson home at approximately 5:45 p.m. Officer Tyus went to the door and spoke to Mr. Simpson, and brought him over to Ms. Bates, who reviewed the report of sexual molestation with him. Respondent arrived at the home at approximately 5:55 p.m. At that time, he spoke to Ms. Bates and to Ms. Simpson, and appeared to be aware of the nature of the allegations. Chief McAlpin stated that the allegations were out of character for Mr. Simpson, and asked Ms. Simpson if she had noticed anything, or if she and Mr. Simpson were having any problems. Chief McAlpin stated that these were serious allegations and that he did not know A.G., but he had known Mr. Simpson all of his life: that they were friends, and there would be an investigation. Ms. Bates did not observe Respondent gather any evidence at the family home that evening. Although he spoke to Shelly Simpson, he did not attempt to interview anyone at the Simpson home. Nor did he make any attempt to interview A.G. that day. Ms. Bates had concerns regarding Chief McAlpin's ability to handle the investigation objectively, given his knowledge of and prior relationship with the suspect, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson was also an employee of the City of Sneads at the time. She expressed those concerns to her then- supervisor, Tamara Hudson. As a result of their conversation, Ms. Hudson called Lt. Daniels and requested that he "step in" and take over the investigation. However, the investigation remained with the SPD, and Chief McAlpin, for the time being. Typically, when there is an investigation regarding possible sexual abuse of a child, the DCF staff working the case would be in close, regular contact with the law enforcement investigator assigned to the case. However, after the evening of January 24, 2007, Ms. Bates had no face-to-face contact with Chief McAlpin during the investigation. Ms. Bates did, however, speak to him on January 31, 2007, to let him know that the CPT medical report had been received and, at his request, faxed a copy of the report to him. Once there was a determination that the complaint was founded, on February 1, 2007, the case was transferred to Anissa Cottongim, who worked as a case manager in the area of child protection. From that date until DCF closed the case in July 2007, Chief McAlpin never called Ms. Cottongim. There was, however, information provided to Chief McAlpin from DCF during this period. On February 14, 2007, Amy Bates spoke to Anissa Cottongim, who informed her that there was a possibility that there were other victims of sexual abuse by Mr. Simpson. Ms. Bates called Chief McAlpin on his cell phone and left him a message to return her call. She called again, about a half hour later, and spoke to him about the possibility of other victims. Chief McAlpin inquired whether the potential victims were family members of A.G., and was told that they were not related. Chief McAlpin indicated that Shelly Simpson had mentioned something to him the day before, and that he would call back in a few minutes and speak to Ms. Cottongim. He did not do so. Ms. Cottongim also forwarded to him the results of a psychosexual examination of A.G., although the date the report was transmitted is not apparent. Chief McAlpin denies receiving the information regarding other possible victims during his investigation. Ms. Bates' testimony is credited. On February 12, 2007, Respondent took the sworn statement of Shelly Simpson. While Mr. Simpson apparently requested a polygraph test, no such test was ever actually administered. On February 22, 2007, Chief McAlpin interviewed A.G. for the first time. He requested that Christina Simpson bring A.G. into his office for an interview. At that point, Ms. Simpson stated that she was confused and did not know "which way to go." Chief McAlpin asked for and received permission to interview A.G. alone, for the stated purpose of seeing if she were telling the truth or lying. Chief McAlpin told Ms. Simpson that he did not believe Mr. Simpson had molested A.G. The interview with A.G. was recorded, although Chief McAlpin told her the conversation was "just between us." He hid the tape recorder behind a sign on his desk so that she could not see it. The interview was over two hours and nineteen minutes long. Major Dennis of the JCSO opined that the interview sounded more like the interrogation of a suspect than the interview of a child victim. He also opined that it appeared from listening to the interview that Chief McAlpin was attempting to get A.G. to change her testimony. Major Dennis' description is an understatement. During those two-plus hours, Chief McAlpin told A.G. repeatedly that he believed she was lying and that it was "okay to make this right." While berating her, he told her he was her friend and that she was in no trouble. He also said, however, that she had told a "circle of lies" and did not want to be labeled as a liar, and that "sometimes people tell something so many times, they believe it." He asked A.G. if she was mad at her stepfather, whom he repeatedly referred to as Shelly, and that if she wanted him out of the home, Chief McAlpin could help her get what she wanted. He reminded her repeatedly that this case was serious and would affect a lot of people, and that it was time to "put some closure to this one way or another." He also asked her what she wanted to happen to her stepfather, who loved her and raised her and was like a dad to her. Respondent asked whether A.G. wanted him "locked up in prison with killers, robbers, and rapers," and stated that he did not want to put an innocent man in prison. Chief McAlpin asked A.G. how she would feel if her ten- year-old brother told people that she was doing bad things to him, and whether she would want someone to talk to him to get to the bottom of things and clear her name. He repeated several times that he believed that there were problems in the home and that A.G. had "issues" and was in need of counseling. He told this 14-year-old girl, who was alone in this lengthy interview with him, that she needed long-term, "in-house" counseling.2/ The examples given in paragraphs 21-22 are just a small sampling of the barrage of statements hurled at A.G. during this "interview." The number of questions actually asked of her could probably have been answered in a 15-20 minute span, at most. The remainder of the time, Chief McAlpin was suggesting reasons why she should recant; telling her how unbelievable she was; that there was no physical corroborating evidence; and what an ordeal she would face if she did not change her story. Yet through it all, while quietly crying, A.G. did not change her story. By contrast, Respondent acknowledged that with respect to his interview with Shelly Simpson, the suspect in this sexual molestation case, he "did not put a lot of pressure on him." At some time after interviewing A.G., Respondent spoke to Mark Sims, the State Attorney. He described the evidence that he had and opined to Mr. Sims that he did not think that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Simpson. At that time, he considered the case to be over. During the time that Chief McAlpin was in charge of the investigation regarding A.G. and Shelly Simpson, A.G.'s grandfather, Robert Griffin, became very dissatisfied with the progress, or lack of it, of the investigation. He complained several times to Major Dennis of the JCSO. Eventually, on or about April 2, 2007, the JCSO took over the investigation, and the case was assigned to Lt. Daniels. Lt. Daniels did not request a copy of the investigative file compiled by Chief McAlpin, and the contents of Respondent's file are not in evidence. Lt. Daniels decided, given the controversy surrounding the case, he would start fresh. He reworked the case as if he had investigated it from the beginning. Almost immediately he arranged for a second medical exam, this time with a female doctor. Lt. Daniels interviewed all the witnesses he knew about and put together as much information as he could before interviewing Shelly Simpson, consistent with his usual practice to interview the subject of an investigation last. His interview with Mr. Simpson took place May 24, 2007. On June 28, 2007, Lt. Daniels submitted his file to Assistant State Attorney Jonna Bowman, with a criminal complaint affidavit charging Mr. Simpson with child abuse and sexual battery. When Ms. Bowman received the file from Lt. Daniels, he explained that he had taken over the case from SPD. She understood that Lt. Daniels did not have the file compiled by Chief McAlpin, and she requested the information from Respondent shortly after July 2, 2007. Respondent called her on July 5, 2007, saying he would bring her his file, along with the taped interview of A.G., the next day. He did not do so. A second request for the information was made, and again the information was promised but not provided. Ms. Bowman did receive some information in August and at some point drove to Sneads to talk to him about his investigation. At that time, Chief McAlpin kept telling Ms. Bowman that A.G.'s story had a lot of inconsistencies in it. He told her he had not quite finished his reports on the case, and did so while she was there, so he could print the information out and give it to her. Chief McAlpin also told her about his interview with A.G., which he represented to be approximately 30-45 minutes, and gave Ms. Bowman a digital recorder which was supposed to contain the interview. However, the recorder contained no interview of A.G. One of the "inconsistencies" upon which Respondent placed great emphasis had to do with the clothing A.G. wore the day that she went hunting with Mr. Simpson and shot her first deer. Chief McAlpin described a picture to Ms. Bowman in which he claimed A.G. was wearing overalls while holding her first deer. He stated that her claim that Mr. Simpson molested her that day was not credible because the molestation could not take place with A.G. wearing overalls. However, at a subsequent visit to the A.G.'s home, Ms. Bowman observed the picture of A.G. holding her first deer. She was not wearing overalls. Ms. Bowman asked again for the interview, and at some point in October 2007, a recorder labeled as belonging to SPD appeared on her desk, with no note of explanation. She found the interview difficult to listen to, but did not find the inconsistencies that Respondent claimed to exist in her story. A capias was issued for Shelly Simpson's arrest on October 9, 2007, charging him with lewd and lascivious molestation. Ms. Bowman left the State Attorney's office before the criminal trial and did not try the case. However, Mr. Simpson was found not guilty by a jury on October 3, 2008. Robert Griffin, A.G.'s grandfather, remained dissatisfied about the way the case was handled, and filed a complaint with the Governor's Office, which was referred to the Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) in late 2007. In connection with FDLE's investigation, Chief McAlpin consented to a sworn interview by FDLE Investigator Ed Fortune. The interview, which was taped and admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3, is approximately 3.5 hours long. In that interview, Chief McAlpin stated that he requested the CPT interview tape on January 24, 2011, "as soon as I could get it" and got the tape through Officer Tyus. His statement conflicts with that of Amy Bates, and Ms. Bates' testimony is credited. However, inasmuch as the tape was placed on Chief McAlpin's desk as opposed to being given to him directly, it is conceivable that Chief McAlpin believed that Officer Tyus had obtained the tape and placed it there. Chief McAlpin stated that prior to the interview Ms. Simpson told him that she believed her husband and thought A.G. would admit that the story was a lie. At hearing, Ms. Simpson testified that she was confused and did not know which way to go. However, it is entirely possible that both statements are correct in that Ms. Simpson was placed in the untenable position of believing either her daughter or her husband, and may have voiced more than one opinion as time went on. Chief McAlpin also states repeatedly in the interview that he was not aware that there was information regarding additional victims when he completed his investigation. His statement conflicts with that of Shelly Bates, and Ms. Bates' testimony is credited. Further, Respondent knew it to be a false statement when he made it. During the interview with Mr. Fortune, there was some discussion regarding letters that were in A.G.'s room. These letters were characterized as inconsistent in terms of language and sexual knowledge with what A.G. had exhibited in the investigation. Chief McAlpin had become aware of the letters through either Christina Simpson or Shelly Simpson. When he did not receive the letters through Ms. Simpson, he asked Shelly Simpson to retrieve them. Chief McAlpin admitted that he had never asked any other subject of an investigation to retrieve evidence, and that the letters would have no chain of custody. He admitted that the letters had no evidentiary value, and that he could not be certain A.G. even wrote them, but in his mind they were relevant to disprove A.G.'s story. Much of the interview with Mr. Fortune deals with the quality of Respondent's investigation and the decision-making behind his investigative choices. He chose not to talk to key people in DCF because he did not know them; did not collect physical evidence; and did not clarify with DCF investigators or medical personnel those areas that he claimed were puzzling or inconsistent. In short, from a review of all of the evidence presented in this case, it appears that Chief McAlpin decided early on that A.G. was not telling the truth and conducted his investigation, to the extent he investigated at all, with the intention of disproving her allegations as opposed to investigating her complaint.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent, John McAlpin, be found guilty of failing to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and That Respondent's law enforcement certification be suspended for a period of eighteen months, followed by two years' probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 26th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Erique Alcindor (Alcindor), currently holds a Class "D" Security Officer License Number D93-01789 issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. The license is effective from March 31, 1999, to February 10, 2001. Alcindor worked as a security officer for Bryant Security Corporation (Bryant) from March 6, 1997, until July 30, 1999. On February 14, 1998, Alcindor was assigned to a security post at Flexible Foam, a client of Bryant. Eugene Warner, a supervisor for Bryant, found Alcindor sleeping in a chair while on duty at Flexible Foam on February 14, 1998. Mr. Warner took a photograph of Alcindor while he was sleeping. On September 4, 1998, Alcindor was again assigned to security post at Flexible Foam. Mr. Warner again found Alcindor sleeping in a chair while he was on duty on September 4, 1998. Mr. Warner took a photograph of Alcindor while he was sleeping. On July 11, 1999, Alcindor was assigned to a security post at a client of Bryant, L.S.G. While at that post, Alcindor was responsible for safeguarding food that would be placed on commercial planes. Mr. Warner found Alcindor alseep in a chair while on duty at L.S.G. on July 11, 1999. Mr. Warner took a photograph of Alcindor while he was sleeping. On July 20, 1999, Alcindor was again assigned to a security post at L.S.G. and again was found sleeping in a chair while on post by Mr. Warner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Erique Alcindor violated Subsection 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and revoking his Class "D" Security Officer License No. D93-01789. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Erique Alcindor 10428 Northwest Fifth Avenue Miami, Florida 33150
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against in employment by Respondent as retaliation for having filed a prior complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Paul Louis Fairbanks, first applied for employment with the Tampa Police Department, (TPD), on December 19, 1988. He was disqualified at that time because he did not meet the Department's visual acuity standards. Nonetheless, he appealed that decision and after a lengthy process, as a part of the settlement, he was allowed to complete the employment process. A part of that process includes an employment interview after which a background investigation is conducted. This includes checking with the professional and personal references provided by the applicant and the development of independent leads which might cast some light on the investigative process. The background investigation of Petitioner was conducted by Herbert C. Anderson, Jr., a retired Lieutenant of Detectives with the Minneapolis, Minnesota, Police Department, and now a civilian investigator with TPD. During the course of his investigation, Mr. Anderson contacted the references provided by the Petitioner, both in Florida and in Baltimore, Maryland, where Petitioner was engaged in police work subsequent to his graduation from college in 1969, to 1974, when, because of his wife's illness, the family moved to Florida. The records of the Baltimore Police Department, show that he was promoted from Patrolman to Police Agent and from Police Agent to Sergeant. Petitioner claims he had the highest scholastic grade in his police academy graduating class and was awarded each promotion at the earliest possible time. It also appears that he did quite well in his firearms qualification and, while employed in Baltimore, received two official commendations. His evaluations ranged from average to excellent as a police officer. As a sergeant, his evaluations ranged from above average to unsatisfactory. By the same token, Petitioner was disciplined four times during the five years he worked in Baltimore. He received three reprimands for failing to appear in traffic court, for having a preventable accident, and for a violation of juvenile custody procedures. His record shows he was reduced in grade from Sergeant to Police Agent for unsatisfactory performance, but Petitioner claims the reduction was the result of his decision to move and the Department's desire to not have him in a sensitive position during his last months of work for fear he might be called back to testify at Department expense. Petitioner claims that when, because of his wife's illness, he decided to move from Baltimore to Florida so his wife could be near her parents, he was given the choice of either resigning immediately as a Sergeant, or taking a reduction in grade and being moved to a less sensitive position. When he declined to do either, he was reduced in grade and the record was made to look as though it was the result of his misconduct. When Petitioner returned to Florida in July, 1974, he went to work for the Sarasota County Sheriff. During the period before he was terminated in November, 1978, he received several letters of thanks from citizens, but also letters of reprimand, suspensions and requests from supervisors for either demotion or dismissal. During this period, the State Attorney's office notified the Sheriff that Petitioner's testimony in court was being questioned and as a result, that office did not want to work with him or prosecute his cases. Petitioner disputes this claim, asserting that his conviction and arrest rates were well above average, and his rate of "decline to file" and "Nol-Pros" were lower than the majority of the other detectives. In reality, Petitioner claims, he was discharged because he was injured in 1977 and was hospitalized three time because of that. His supervisor directed him to return to work before it was appropriate to do so, and expressed the opinion Petitioner was malingering. Notwithstanding this, Petitioner filed a worker's compensation claim against the Sheriff's office as a result of his injury, and when his lawyer negotiated a settlement slightly under the maximum compensible for the injury involved, Petitioner was thereafter discharged. Mr. Fairbanks notes that shortly after this time, the Sheriff was removed from office by the Governor. Petitioner also claims that he received "good or better" evaluations over the first four years of his employment. Yet, the termination action was based on several alleged incidents of misconduct. These included a failure to comply with search and seizure laws, failure to follow department policies in areas of public statements pertaining to other criminal justice agencies, and a failure to comply with civil rights of individuals being questioned. He also believes it was because of the notoriety he had gained within the criminal justice system. Petitioner either denies any involvement in the situations alleged or, as in the incident involving public statements, asserts what he considers to be a reasonable and legitimate rationale for having done what he did. In the latter incident, he claims, he was directed to discuss the case in question by his superior who thereafter, when the publicity was less than desirable, declined to admit he had done so. In December, 1989, Petitioner went to work for the Bradenton Beach Police Department as a police officer, resigning in August, 1983 when the department was moving for his termination because of a false official report, false swearing and official misconduct. Petitioner was cleared of those charges by State Attorney, but the Department persisted in its efforts to dismiss him. During the course of this process, Petitioner inquired of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission regarding his certification status and was advised he was not certified. Upon the receipt of this information, Petitioner resigned. After his resignation, however, he was advised by the Commission that he had not been decertified. In addition to the matters outlined above, Mr. Fairbanks' personnel file with the Bradenton Police Department also contained two letters of reprimand regarding citizen complaints on traffic stops and his demeanor with the public, and a letter from the Manatee Sheriff's Detention Director complaining of Petitioner's failure to follow proper procedures when booking prisoners. Again, Petitioner has "explanations" for the allegations which, if believed, would absolve him of any wrongdoing. In this, as in the other situations mentioned where Petitioner has his own version of the situation, it is impossible to determine which version is the most accurate. Petitioner claims that in 1984, for a period of three months, he served as Risk Management-Range Safety Officer for Manatee County. However, the Human Resources Director for the County has no record of this or of Petitioner working there as anything other than a life guard. He also held several jobs outside law enforcement that year and into 1985. From August, 1985 to November, 1988, the period covering that referenced in the paragraph next above, Petitioner worked as a lifeguard in Manatee County. Though rated as an overall satisfactory employee, the records reflect that Petitioner quit without notice. He also worked as a part-time police officer for Bradenton Beach from July, 1987 to April, 1988 when he was discharged by the new Chief of Police. From November, 1988 to December, 1988, Petitioner served as Chief of Police for Bradenton Beach, but he was terminated by the new City Council for "administrative reasons - unfavorable circumstances." Allegedly these referred to reported citizen complaints about Petitioner while he was conducting a personally initiated investigation into the improper notarization of election affidavits. Petitioner recounts an extended version of the incidents alleged here. It is impossible, at this time, to determine what actually happened. For eighteen days during April, 1989, Petitioner was employed by the DeSoto Correctional Institute as a Corrections Officer. While in training at the Corrections Academy, Petitioner disagreed with the way the firearms instruction was being conducted and criticized the instructors. He was described as "irritable, argumentative and totally untrainable." It is also alleged that Mr. Fairbanks committed safety violations at the range. In a discussion with one of the instructors, Petitioner was sent to the office of the personnel manager where he asked for a piece of paper and submitted his resignation. It is quite probable, in light of the Petitioner's extensive experience with and good record in the use of firearms, that he did comment unfavorably on the way the range training was being conducted. By his own admission, Petitioner is difficult to get along with and very open and free in expressing his opinion. By the same token, he admits to being abrasive and argumentative. Based on his extensive experience with firearms, however, it is highly unlikely that he was unsafe on the range. He claims he was not argumentative with the people at the prison, but he resented the way he was talked to. He was afraid he would be framed by prison personnel, and he quit before they could do anything to him. This was the last employment he had in law enforcement. Since May, 1989 to the present, he has been employed as a forklift operator at Tropicana Products in Bradenton. Mr. Fairbanks takes great umbrage at the fact that he was denied employment by TPD when Mr. Metzger, also a police officer, who was discharged from his prior employment in law enforcement in Bradenton Beach, was hired. Petitioner considers his qualifications and his honesty as being far superior to that of Mr. Metzger, and he is offended by the fact that TPD considers Metzger qualified for employment while rejecting him. He is convinced that TPD relied on the recommendation of Mr. Maddox, the former Chief of Police at Holmes Beach, whose own reputation, according to Petitioner, is not so good. In the course of his investigation, Mr. Anderson interviewed several individuals other than those related to the incidents described herein. An attorney described Petitioner as uncompromising and a "by the book" policeman. A former supervisor at the Sheriff's department, while describing him as a hard worker and needing specific supervision, nonetheless would like to have Petitioner work for him. Mr. Maddox is not a great admirer of Mr. Fairbanks, describing him as, among other things, aggressive. Three professional references describe him as hard headed and would not recommend him, yet the six personal references all gave him a good recommendation. Mr. Anderson submitted his investigative summary regarding Mr. Fairbanks to Mr. Walker, TPD Personnel Bureau Manager, on September 14, 1992. About that time, a copy of Mr. Anderson's report was discussed with the Petitioner who thereafter prepared an extensive rebuttal to the allegations therein, supported by numerous exhibits which, he felt, gave credence to his assertions. Mr. Walker cannot say at this time whether he read it or not, but it seems familiar. His testimony indicates the likelihood he did read it, however, and it is so found. Nonetheless, Mr. Walker indicated that he was not persuaded by the Petitioner's submittal, and, on September 28, 1992, he forwarded his negative recommendation to the TPD Chief of Police. In his recommendation against hiring Petitioner, Mr. Walker noted Petitioner's prior complaint history but gave no indication that played any part in his recommendation. He also recited Petitioner's prior employment history and briefly describes the caliber of that service. Walker concluded that Petitioner's past employment record, with its indication of disciplinary problems, demonstrates he does not meet the TPD's professional standards. There is no evidence of personnel records of the TPD from which it reasonably can be concluded that the Department's decision not to employ Petitioner was retaliation for his prior complaint filed with the Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Commission on Human Relations in FCHR Case No. 93-0636 determining No Cause on Petitioner's complaint of retaliation. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 2nd day of May, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Louis Fairbanks 1715 82nd Street NW Bradenton, Florida 34209 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez Suite 200, 109 N. Brush Street Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sharon Moultry Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4149
The Issue Whether the registration of the Respondent, Betty Lou Haber, license #0034988 should be revoked or suspended, or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact An administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, on September 29, 1978, seeking to revoke or suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent Haber. The administrative complaint charged that the licensee was presently confined in a state prison. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. A stipulation was entered by Barry A. Cohen, Esquire, the attorney for Respondent, confirming that Respondent Haber was and had been continuously confined in the Broward Correctional Institution since August 16, 1977. Said stipulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to the hearing a letter was received by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, advising the Petitioner that Respondent did not intend to proceed to hearing and requesting Petitioner to close the matter. The Division of Administrative Hearings was not so notified. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Petitioner presented the aforesaid stipulation and aforesaid letter and a witness at the hearing. The witness, Martha Iglesias, Inmate Records Supervisor for the Broward Correctional Institution, testified that Respondent Haber was an inmate of said institution, having been found guilty by a jury of First Degree Murder in Case #75-518 in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary for a period of her natural life.
Recommendation Revoke the non-active salesman license held by the Respondent, Betty Lou Haber. DONE and ORDERED this 18TH day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barry A. Cohen, Esquire 100 Twiggs Street, Suite 4000 Tampa, Florida 33602 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
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)
Findings Of Fact Respondent, West Coast Detective Agency, is a private investigative agency licensed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes (1979), and Ralph C. Cox is the owner and agent of the Respondent. A complaint was made to Petitioner's Tallahassee office by a William McDonald, stating that West Coast Detective Agency had deducted $7.50 from his pay representing the fee for a guard license but that he had never received his license. As a result of that complaint, Earl Cushing, Petitioner's Inspector Supervisor for the State, instructed Petitioner's regional office to conduct an official unannounced premise inspection. The case was assigned to Shirley Ziel Hall. Since Mrs. Hall was a relatively new regional representative, she was accompanied by Frank Calhoun, the Regional Supervisor, on January 30, 1900, the date of the unannounced premise inspection. Upon their arrival at the Respondent's office, Calhoun and Hall identified themselves and examined the business records of the Respondent. That examination, together with verification telephone calls to the Division of Licensing in Tallahassee, revealed that Respondent had employed Robert Quinn on November 9, 1979, and Jeffery M. Williams on December 18, 1979. However, Respondent did not send to Tallahassee those two employees' applications for licensure as guards until January 9, 1980. At the time that these two guards were hired, Pamela M. Cox, the office manager of Respondent and wife of the agency's owner, was on maternity leave, and the substitute secretary had not forwarded the applications for licensure. When Mrs. Cox returned from leave, she found the applications and mailed them. Ralph J. Cox, the owner's son, came into Respondent's office while Calhoun and Hall were conducting their inspection. He was wearing a patch which read "WCDA Police" on the right shoulder of his uniform. The Coxes acknowledged they knew such a patch was illegal and explained that they were in the process of changing the patches on all uniforms but that Ralph J. Cox was wearing an old shirt on that day. Ralph J. Cox is not a member of a police auxiliary. Several years earlier, Michael Tsacris, a regional representative of the petitioner, had visited the Respondent's office, had seen Respondent's uniforms with patches carrying the police designation, and had advised Ralph C. Cox to change the patches. He did not issue a Notice of Violation to the Respondent at that time. While at the Agency, Calhoun inspected the weapon being carried by Ralph J. Cox and found that it was a .357 magnum with hollow point bullets. The Coxes explained that Respondent owned an armored car business which is under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and that Ralph J. Cox had been working in the armored car. However, he was only able to produce "F" and "G" licenses issued by the Petitioner as his authority to carry such a weapon and did not produce any authorization from the Public Service Commission. In a discussion following the examination of the weapon, Ralph C. Cox admitted he knew that employees of his agency were not permitted to carry such a weapon. Ralph J. Cox possesses "F" and "G" licenses because he is employed by the Respondent. Calhoun then went to the First National Bank of Naples where an employee of Respondent, Ralph Mongold, was on duty. Mongold's weapon was also a .357 magnum loaded with hollow point bullets. Ralph C. Cox explained that one of his employees had called in sick, and he had taken Mongold off the armored car instructed him to work at the bank and, therefore, Mongold was carrying a .357 magnum. Calhoun did not observe an armored car in the area of the bank, and Mongold did not indicate he was working with an armored car at that time. Calhoun issued to the Respondent three Notices of Violation, and thereafter his superiors assessed a fine of five hundred dollars against West Coast Detective Agency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A Final Order be entered requiring Respondent to pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars to the Petitioner by a date certain. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert L. Williams, Jr., Esquire Carroll, McPeak, Bolesky & Shryver The Office at the Cove 1169 Eighth Street, South Naples, Florida 33940 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
