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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the applications of the Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, for a Class "C" Private Investigator License and for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. Specifically, under Section 493.6118(3), Fla. Stat. (1991), the issue as to each application is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the Petitioner lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, was a municipal law enforcement officer from approximately 1975 through the middle of 1977. He was a deputy sheriff and, later, a detective with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office from approximately June, 1978, through April, 1979, and from May, 1980, through August, 1992. Background checks when he was employed with the Sheriff's Office revealed no evidence of facts that would establish a personal history of dishonesty, unfairness, or disrespect for the rights and property of others or for the laws of Florida or of the nation. Nor is there any evidence, during the course of his employment through approximately May, 1992, that the Petitioner had a personal history of dishonesty, unfairness, or disrespect for the rights and property of others or for the laws of Florida or of the nation. During the summer of 1992, and for some time before, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office was involved in a substantial multiple-law-enforcement- agency investigation. In approximately June or July, 1992, the law enforcement agencies involved learned that the subjects of the investigation not only knew about it but had been given copies of four pages of notes made by members of the Sheriff's Office involved in the investigation that listed, by name and in some cases additional identifying information, some 15 "suspects" and 22 "possible targets." The disclosure seriously compromised the investigation, to say the least. An internal investigation was launched to determine the source of the damaging disclosure. It was revealed that a copy of the notes had been in the copying room of the identification and records section of the Sheriff's Office for approximately six to eight weeks prior to the disclosure. An employee recalled: seeing it on a work table in the copying room at the beginning of that time period; looking at it and realizing it was something important that should not be made public; thinking that whoever put it there would be back for it soon; and finishing his business in the copying machine, leaving the notes where he had found them. He also recalled returning to the copying room the next day and not seeing the notes where he had left them. He assumed at the time that whoever had put them there had returned and removed them. But later, in July, 1992, he read in the local newspapers that copies of documents sounding much like what he had seen in the copying room had been given to the suspects under investigation. He returned to the copying room and found the notes in a stack of miscellaneous papers. Several people, including the Petitioner, were questioned under oath during the course of the internal investigation. The Petitioner was questioned in a deposition conducted by an assistant state attorney on or about July 30, 1992. During the deposition, the Petitioner was shown copies of the four pages of notes that were recovered from the copying room and was asked whether he had ever seen a copy of them. The Petitioner looked at all four pages carefully (the deposition transcript indicates a pause in the proceedings) and answered, "no." After the deposition, the four pages of notes recovered from the copying room were processed for latent fingerprints. The Petitioner's left thumb print appeared on the left side of one of the pages, labeled at the top "Possible Targets," about two-thirds of the way up the page. On the list of 14 "possible targets" on that page were the names Vincent Loscalzo, who the testimony indicates is reputed to be involved in organized crime in the Tampa area, and several others whom the Petitioner either knew personally or whose names he would have recognized. The Petitioner's left thumb print also appeared on the left side of the next page of the list of "possible targets," also about two-thirds of the way up the page. On the list of eight names on that page were at least two names the Petitioner would have recognized. One was the husband of the mayor of the City of Tampa. The Petitioner knows Vincent Loscalzo personally. While employed with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the Petitioner also was in business for himself distributing an oil re-refiner. The Petitioner is concentrating on that business now that he has "retired" from the Sheriff's Office. (The Petitioner tried to give the false impression that his "retirement" in August, 1992, had nothing to do with the internal investigation and that the Petitioner had been planning for some time to retire in August, 1992, to concentrate on his business.) The product was manufactured by a company in which Vincent Loscalzo has an ownership interest. Loscalzo has an office above a lounge he owns in Tampa, called the Brothers Lounge, and the Petitioner has had conversations with him there. It is found that the Petitioner testified falsely on his deposition that he had never before seen copies of the four pages of notes recovered from the copying room. Many people, besides the Petitioner, had access to the copying room during the six to eight weeks that the notes were there. Most had legitimate Sheriff's Office business to conduct, and they would not have been questioned or supervised. Others, not having legitimate Sheriff's Office business to conduct, also could have entered the copying room unquestioned and unsupervised during that time period. Two other person's fingerprints were identified on the notes- -the person who brought the notes into the copying room and left them, and the person who saw the notes and recovered them after reading about them in the newspaper. Not all people who touched the notes necessarily would have left fingerprints that could be lifted and identified. Many factors would enter into the question whether someone who touched the notes would leave prints that could be lifted and identified. In addition to those identified, some unidentifiable prints were left on the notes. Under these facts, the Respondent concedes in its proposed recommended order that it was unable to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Petitioner criminally disclosed the existence of a substantial criminal investigation to the subjects of the investigation. On or about January 23, 1993, the Petitioner was stopped for driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol consumption. As the arresting officer approached the Petitioner's vehicle, from the rear, the Petitioner opened the driver-side door and got out. As he did, his left pant leg got caught on an object that appeared to be under the pant leg at the Petitioner's ankle, and the pant leg bunched up and bulged. The Petitioner identified himself to the arresting officer as a retired deputy sheriff. Based on the arresting officer's experience and knowledge, particularly that off-duty law enforcement officers often concealed their firearms under the pant leg in an ankle holster, the arresting officer asked if the bulge he saw under the pant leg was a firearm. The Petitioner acknowledged that it was. In answer to the officer's question whether the Petitioner had a permit to carry a concealed firearm, told the officer that he did. In fact, the Petitioner did not even apply for a concealed firearm license until March 30, 1993, and one was not issued to him until April 6, 1993. It is found from the clear and convincing totality of the evidence in this case, taken as a whole, that the Petitioner lacks a personal history of honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying the applications of the Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, for a Class "C" Private Investigator License and for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2048S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as not proven that the resignation was totally voluntarily. Also, no party questioned about it at the hearing knew the procedures for licensure by a former law enforcement officer. In any event, the procedures are matters of law, not fact, and are set out in Section 790.06, Fla. Stat. (1991). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. Rejected in part as not proven and as being conclusions of law. Fact of the pendency of criminal proceedings, a ruling suppressing evidence, and the State's appeal accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the firearm was visible. (It was only detectable.) Part of the rest is rejected as being conclusions of law, and the other part of the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary that the Petitioner has been charged but not convicted. The rest is rejected as being argument and conclusions of law. Accepted (the questions to the witnesses excluded reference to the charges leveled in this case) and subordinate to facts found. Rejected in part as being argument and conclusions of law and in part as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected in part as being argument but otherwise accepted but in part subordinate to facts contrary to those found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence, rejected as being argument and not proven and contrary to facts found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected for the same reasons as in 3., above. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. 3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 11.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 15.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 17. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellis Faught, Jr., Esquire 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's certification as a Firefighter II Compliance should be permanently revoked for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint (Complaint), dated June 6, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating firefighters in the State. Respondent is certified in Florida as a Firefighter II Compliance. He holds Certificate No. 139586. Until the incident underlying this controversy arose, Respondent was employed by the Sarasota County Fire Department as a firefighter/paramedic. He now is working in the emergency room of a local hospital. The parties have stipulated that on March 21, 2018, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a weapon, a third-degree felony punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under Florida law. Adjudication was withheld, Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years, and he was ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount of $1,525.00. See also Dep't Ex. 19. In response to the Complaint, Respondent essentially argues that: (a) he should not have been charged with the underlying criminal offense because he was defending himself against an aggressor in a road rage incident, and (b) he entered a nolo contendere plea based on bad advice from his attorney. At hearing, Respondent gave his version of the events resulting in his arrest. Also, two police officers involved with his arrest testified to what they observed and reported. Their testimony conflicts in many respects with Respondent's testimony. The undersigned will not attempt to reconcile the conflicts, as this proceeding is not the appropriate forum in which to relitigate the criminal charge. During the criminal case, Respondent was represented by a criminal law attorney who presented him with two options: enter into a plea arrangement or go to trial and risk a harsher penalty if he were found guilty. Respondent says he accepted his counsel's recommendation that he enter a plea of nolo contendere on the belief that he would not have a felony arrest on his record. After the plea agreement was accepted by the court, Respondent learned that the plea required revocation of his certification and loss of his job. Respondent also testified that even though he paid counsel a $15,000.00 fee, his counsel did little or no investigation regarding what happened, as he failed to depose a single witness before making a recommendation to take a plea.1/ In hindsight, Respondent says he would have gone to trial since he now believes he had a legitimate claim to the "castle defense," and the so-called victim in the incident (the driver of the other car) has a long criminal history and is now incarcerated. At this point, however, if Respondent believes an error in the legal process occurred, his only remedy, if one exists at all, is through the court system and not in an administrative proceeding. A felony plea constitutes noncompliance with the certification statute and requires permanent revocation of a certification. According to a Department witness, however, five years after all requirements of the court's sentencing have been met, the Department has the authority "in a formal process" to make a "felony conviction review" that may result in the reissuance of a certification. Except for this incident, Respondent has no other blemishes on his record. He served in the United States Marine Corps, with combat tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was honorably discharged, and he was honored for saving a life at a Target store while off-duty. He has apologized for his actions, taken an anger management course, and received further treatment for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder at a local Veteran's Administration facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of February, 2019.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, who holds a Florida teaching certificate, on the basis of allegations regarding the Respondent's purchase of crack cocaine.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wayne Thurston, holds Florida teaching certificate number 479646, covering the area of physical education, which is valid through June 30, 1995. During the period from April 1991 to July 1991, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at James H. Bright Elementary School, in the Dade County School District. On April 5, 1991, Detective Laurick Ingram was working as an undercover police officer with the Metro-Dade Police Department, assigned to a tactical narcotics team detail. As part of his assignment, Detective Ingram was posing as a seller of cocaine in what is termed a "reverse sting" operation. It was an operation in which several undercover police officers posed as sellers of crack cocaine at premises which were previously know by the police to be the location of frequent drug sales. The reverse sting operation in question took place in the front yard of a house located at 2520 N.W. 159th Street, Miami, Florida. At approximately 8:00p.m. on the evening of April 5, 1991, the Respondent approached Detective Ingram at the location described above and asked the Detective for $20.00 worth of cocaine. Detective Ingram gave the Respondent two rocks of crack cocaine and in exchange the Respondent gave Detective Ingram $20.00. Detective Ingram did not conduct any tests on the substance sold to the Respondent to verify that it was, in fact, cocaine. However, it is the regular and consistent practice of the Metro-Dade Police Department, in conjunction with reverse sting operations, to use genuine cocaine. Detective Ingram then gave a signal to one of the other police officers and one of the other police officers then arrested the Respondent. The Respondent was processed and was subsequently charged by information in the Circuit Court for Dade County with one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. On or about July 11, 1991, the Respondent was accepted into the Dade County Drug Treatment Pretrial Release Program. During the period from February 27, 1992, to May 7, 1992, the Respondent was subjected to urinalysis examinations on eighteen occasions and on each occasion the results were negative for use of drugs. Ms. Joanne Goberna Molina has been the principal of James H. Bright Elementary School since January 23, 1992. During the year that she has been the principal at that school, the Respondent's performance as a teacher has been acceptable. During that period the Respondent has not been tardy. The fact that the Respondent was arrested has received very little notoriety among the faculty, staff, students, or parents of the school where he works.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of a three year period of probation, which probation shall include the requirements that the Respondent: Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school rules and school district regulations and any disciplinary actions imposed upon the Respondent; Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with a true and accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten days of its issuance; Shall satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner; Shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all district and school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006; and Participate fully and to its completion in a substance abuse program and submit to random drug testing as directed by his employer or the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-7063 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as constituting primarily argument about conflicting testimony, rather than specific proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 11: First sentence rejected as unnecessary procedural details. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as based on speculation or conjecture, rather than on reliable evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is rejected because as stated it is nothing more than an unnecessary summary of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made to the effect that the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint have been proved.) Paragraphs 2 and 3: These paragraphs are rejected as constituting summaries of testimony, rather than statements of specific proposed findings of fact. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made consistent with the testimony summarized in these two paragraphs.) Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 5: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony, rather than a statement of a specific proposed fact. Also rejected for the reason that the exculpatory explanation offered by the Respondent has not been credited. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 7: The first line is rejected as not supported by persuasive, credible evidence. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12: Accepted in whole or in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Jackson, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Can the Board of Real Estate consider matters surrounding the offense to which a person pleads guilty in determining whether that person possesses the necessary character to be licensee? What is the evidentiary effect of a plea of guilty by an applicant for licensure? Is the Petitioner qualified for licensure?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Edward J. Gibney made application to The Board of Real Estate for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Board denied Petitioner's application pursuant to Section 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, because he was convicted of crimes against the laws of the United States and against the laws of the State of New Jersey involving moral turpitude. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the crimes of conspiring to commit fraud on medicaid and medicare claims, a felony under the laws of the United States. He also pleaded guilty to a similar offense which was a felony under the laws of New Jersey. Both offenses arose out of the same factual situation. The sole grounds for denial of Petitioner's application were his criminal convictions and the matters surrounding them. The Petitioner is otherwise qualified for licensure. After initial notification of the Boards intention to deny his application, the Petitioner requested and received an informal hearing before the Board. The Board notified Petitioner that it still intended to deny his application, and the Petitioner requested and was granted a formal hearing. The transcript of the Board's informal hearing was received as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1. Petitioner was the only witness at the hearing. He explained very candidly the facts surrounding his entry of guilty pleas to the criminal charges brought against him. His testimony was uncontroverted and is accepted as true. Petitioner, a graduate chemist, was qualified and licensed as a medical laboratory director in New Jersey. For 15 years prior to 1975, he owned and operated a small medical laboratory directly providing clinical laboratory services to private physicians. In 1975, Petitioner was approached several times over a period of three months by Seymour Slaughtnick to provide laboratory services to several doctors for medicaid/medicare patients. Slaughtnick was functioning as an intermediary. Slaughtnick picked up test samples at the doctors' offices and transported them to another laboratory. Slaughtnick wanted to change laboratories because of the poor quality laboratory work. Although Slaughtnick's function was described, Slaughtnick's relationship with the other laboratory or the doctors was never defined. Petitioner described Slaughtnick as a salesman. Petitioner initially refused the Slaughtnick offer because he had not done medicare/medicaid work and did not know how to process the paperwork. Slaughtnick continued to press Petitioner for a commitment to do this work and offered to prepare and submit all the paperwork for Petitioner. Slaughtnick and petitioner eventually agreed to an arrangement under which Slaughtnick picked up the samples, brought them to Petitioner's laboratory, transmitted the test results back to the physicians, and prepared Petitioner's billings to medicare/medicaid for the professional services rendered. Petitioner performed all the laboratory work as ordered by the physicians and prepared all test results, paying Slaughtnick a percentage of the fee for each test for his services. Petitioner was aware that his arrangement with Slaughtnick and permitting Slaughtnick to bill in his name was illegal under New Jersey law. To assure himself that Slaughtnick's billings were in order, Petitioner checked on Slaughtnick's billings after they began to work together. The State of new Jersey's medicaid/medicare plan was administered by Prudential Insurance Company using a blind fee schedule. Petitioner was advised by Prudential that his schedule initially provided various fees for various laboratory tests, but laboratories would not be advised of the amounts of payment or criteria used for assessing the appropriateness of ordering the tests. He was advised Prudential would reject any billings that were inappropriate. In 1976, the State of New Jersey began an investigation of its entire medicare/medicaid system. Initially, the inquiry with Petitioner's laboratory centered on whether he was performing the work ordered. It was determined that Petitioner performed all the work for which he billed the state. This investigation gave rise to an administrative complaint against Petitioner that charged him with overbilling. An administrative hearing was conducted which lasted eight months, during which 55 days of testimony were taken. The New Jersey hearing officer eventually that 50 percent of the orders and billings were correct; however, before the administrative order was entered, the Petitioner was indicated by the state of New Jersey and the United States for conspiracy to defraud under medicaid/medicare. The indictment alleged that Petitioner, Slaughtnick and other unnamed co-conspirators had conspired to defraud medicaid and medicare. The indictment was not introduced at this hearing; however, the Petitioner explained it alleged that the conspirators arranged to order more complex tests than were necessary, performed these tests, and then billed the state for the inflated service. Petitioner denied any knowledge of such a scheme to inflate test orders, however Petitioner did admit that his permitting Slaughtnick to prepare bills to medicaid and medicare in the laboratory's name was not authorized under the New Jersey law. Petitioner also denied knowledge of any kickbacks paid by Slaughtnick to any of the physicians or those in their employment. However, Petitioner stated he had no doubt after the fact that Slaughtnick was engaged in such a practice. Since his release from probation slightly more than 18 months ago, Petitioner has studied real estate and attempted to recover from the strain of the loss of his business, the long hearing, and his conviction and sentencing. The facts upon which this case are based occurred in 1975-76. Petitioner was sentenced in 1977, and has been released from confinement and probation since January, 1980. There is no evidence that petitioner has engaged in any conduct that would reflect adversely on his character since he terminated his laboratory work for medicaid/medicare in 1976.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner Edward J. Gibney be denied licensure upon the specific ground that under Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes, he failed to present sufficient evidence of his reputation in the community to assure the Board of Real Estate that the interest of the public and investors would not be endangered unduly. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry H. Spalding, Esquire 6360 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 33581 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol, 16th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street PO Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 14, 1983, and November 19, 1981, and was issued certificate numbers 02-33918 and 502-868. Respondent is currently certified as a law enforcement officer and as a correctional officer by the Commission. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. On May 3, 1986, Respondent, Deputy McDonald, and their immediate supervisor Sergeant James Walkup were working a directed patrol in the south portion of Broward County, Florida. Each was in his own patrol car, but they were working as a group with the express purpose of conducting a routine harassment of known or suspected drug dealers or users in the vicinity. They spotted a rental car occupied by two black males parked in an open field in a residential neighborhood. The occupant of the vehicle in the driver's seat was Jimmy Fox, a reputed drug dealer. All three patrol cars pulled into the field behind the rental vehicle. Respondent "radioed" in that he had made a traffic stop. Neither McDonald nor Walkup radioed that they were on the scene to serve as back-up units. Deputy George Gechoff was working off-duty at the Home Depot on 58th Avenue in the west Hollywood area when he heard Respondent radio that he had made a traffic stop. Since Gechoff did not hear anyone radio that they were serving as back-up to Respondent, Gechoff drove to the location of the traffic stop which was just a few blocks away. When Gechoff arrived at the scene Respondent had already searched the front seat area of the rental vehicle and had asked Fox's permission to search the trunk. Initially, Fox refused consent to the search of the trunk of the rental vehicle. Gechoff and Fox knew each other. After Respondent assured Fox that Fox would not be arrested since the search was illegal and after Gechoff urged Fox to be cooperative, Fox consented to the request. The trunk of the car was opened, and Respondent and Gechoff began searching it. The Respondent found a pistol in the trunk and went to his patrol car to "run a check" on the gun. While Respondent was in is patrol car, Deputy Gechoff, who assisted in the search of the trunk, found an aspirin or "pill- type" bottle containing approximately 50 small objects. Although Walkup testified that the objects were square cubes of yellowish material, Gechoff testified that the objects were white chips of different sizes. At the time, Walkup, Gechoff, and Respondent each believed that the objects were "crack" cocaine. If the objects were indeed crack cocaine, each object would be a single dose of the drug, and each object would have a sale price ranging from $10 to $20. In respondent to his radio inquiry, Respondent was advised that he had a "hit" on the gun, which meant it was wanted in connection with a crime or that it had been previously reported as stolen. When Respondent communicated that information to his immediate supervisor, Sergeant Walkup, Gechoff handed Respondent the aspirin bottle. Walkup instructed Respondent to take both the firearm and the suspected cocaine and write up a "found property report." Respondent was concerned about writing a report for found property, rather than seized property, and suggested to Walkup that they simply turn the matter over to the State Attorney's Office. Walkup took the position that the property was illegally seized since there was no probable cause for the search of the vehicle and the search had taken place simply as part of an harassment operation. He instructed Respondent to report the property as "found property" and left the scene. When Respondent left the scene, he had with him both the confiscated firearm and the aspirin bottle with its contents. He remained concerned about being ordered to write a found property report, but knew he had to do something since he had already radioed in that he had recovered a firearm wanted by the Broward County sheriff's Office. On the spur of the moment, as he was driving through a wooded area near a rock pit, Respondent took the top off the bottle and threw it out the window scattering the contents as he threw away the bottle. Later that day Respondent wrote and signed an Event Report at the Broward County Sheriff's Office reporting that he had found a .44 Magnum and suspected cocaine off the roadway while on routine patrol. The firearm was turned in at the same time, and a property receipt was issued. No property receipt was issued for the suspected cocaine. Several weeks later, Sergeant Walkup received a telephone call from Fox concerning the incident on May 3. In response to that telephone call, Walkup retrieved and reviewed Respondent's report of the May 3 incident with Fox. Upon reviewing the report, Walkup became concerned with the apparent conflicts between the report's contents and his recollection of the events. He so notified his supervisor. On July 1, 1986, Respondent provided a sworn statement to Lieutenant Roger Lekutis of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Internal Affairs Unit. He admitted that after he drove away from the scene of the Fox "traffic stop" he threw the bottle which he believed contained cocaine "rocks" out the window of his patrol car. He told Lekutis that Walkup had instructed him to write a report of the incident as a "found property" report. He also admitted failing to turn over the suspected cocaine to an evidence custodian. No evidence was offered suggesting that Respondent disposed of the suspected cocaine in a manner different than throwing it out the window as he drove through the wooded area near the rock pit, and the Respondent's testimony in that regard is credited. Since this incident, Respondent has been reinstated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office but was not yet on the payroll by the time of the final hearing in this cause, since he was undergoing certain pre-employment certification and testing procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1989. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 88-4963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 13-17, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4, 7, 11, 12, and 18 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for a real estate license may lawfully be denied based on her criminal history.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged, inter alia, with granting or denying real estate licenses. Certain administrative services are provided to the Commission by the Division of Real Estate (Division) of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department). Ms. Ellis, at the time of the hearing, was a 34-year- old female residing in Tallahassee, Florida. She is currently employed as a legal secretary and has held a commission as a notary public in Florida since 1997. On July 20, 2007, a DBPR 0010-2 Master Individual Application, prepared by Ms. Ellis, was received by the Department. The application sought a real estate sales associate license. In a letter dated August 7, 2007, the Department notified Ms. Ellis that her application was incomplete. Specifically, the letter noted that she had checked the "yes" block on the inquiry addressing criminal matters and requested additional information with regard to her involvement with the criminal justice system. The letter also requested matters, labeled "Questions 2, 3, and 4," that were not relevant to her application. In a letter dated October 23, 2007, Ms. Ellis responded to the demand for additional information. She provided the Department with letters of recommendation written by her father, Tallahassee attorney Vinson Barrett, and fellow legal secretary Adriana Bernstein. The gist of the letters was that she is a good worker, honest, an exemplary mother, trustworthy, and maintains good working relationships with her fellow workers. In a letter dated October 29, 2007, she provided additional documents illuminating her involvement with the criminal justice system. Despite her input, the Commission rejected her application at its November 14, 2007, meeting. Ms. Ellis did not attend this meeting. The Commission recited findings of fact using reference "keys" as follows: CRIMES IN APPLICATION Applicant's criminal record is revealed in application. * * * UNPERSUASIVE TESTIMONY Applicant's testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive. CRIMES RECENT Applicant's criminal history is recent in time. PATTERN OF CRIME Applicant's criminal history shows a pattern and practice of criminal behavior over an extended period of time. * * * The Commission made the following conclusions of law: * * * Failing to demonstrate: honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character, a good reputation for fair dealing, competent and qualified to conduct transactions and negotiations with safety to others. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181 F.S. Having engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181 F.S. * * * F. Found guilty of a course of conduct or practices which show applicant is so incompetent, negligent, or dishonest that money, property, and rights of others may not safely be entrusted to applicant. 475.25(1)(o), 475.181 F.S. * * * Applicant is subject to discipline under 475.25 (specify), 475.181 F.S. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him/her easy access to the homes, families, or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S. A "Summary of Applicants, FREC Meeting: November 14, 2007" prepared for the Commission meeting in Ms. Ellis' case, is inaccurate, and unless read closely and supplemented with additional facts, would cause a reasonable person to believe that Ms. Ellis was convicted of four offenses. In fact, she was found guilty of two offenses, battery and stalking. Although it is apparent that the Commission once had rules in place that perhaps provided guidance in relation to the standards expected of an applicant's behavior, the rules have been repealed and new rules have not be adopted. The events giving rise to the findings recited by the Commission, relate to incidents arising from Ms. Ellis' interaction with law enforcement authorities while a resident of Tampa, Florida. Ms. Ellis moved into Ms. Lisa Nawrocki's home at East 99th Street, in Tampa during the latter part of 1998 with her two children. She and Ms. Nawrocki had a series of disputes with their neighbors. From late 1998 until October 1999, law enforcement was summoned by Ms. Ellis, Ms. Nawrocki, or their neighbors on 30 occasions. On January 31, 1999, Ms. Ellis was arrested for a battery precipitated by a dispute with one of her neighbors. She pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty of battery at a bench trial. She was sentenced on May 26, 1999, to one year of probation and community service. Ms. Ellis was also directed to attend an anger management class. Ms. Ellis alleged to the media that she and Ms. Nawrocki were victims of "hate" crimes. Ms. Ellis asserted to the media that their difficulties with their neighbors arose because she was a homosexual. Ms. Ellis was arrested again on August 25, 1999, as a result of a confrontation with neighbors. The neighbors were witnesses against Ms. Ellis in another case so she was charged with witness tampering. In order to avoid a trial and possible imprisonment, with attendant separation from her children, she pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of stalking and was sentenced to one year of probation on October 27, 1999. Because the latter offense was a violation of probation on the battery offense of January 31, 1999, her probation was revoked. She was sentenced to 30 days in jail. After serving six days in jail Ms. Ellis was released after promising the judge that she and Ms. Nawrocki would move out of their troubled neighborhood on East 99th Street, and relocate to Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Ellis did in fact move to Tallahassee and has experienced no involvement with the criminal justice system since her move. Her probation, resulting from the battery conviction was successfully completed on March 7, 2000. Her probation resulting from the stalking charge, which was continued subsequent to her release from confinement, was successfully completed on May 15, 2001. All of the charges resulted from the neighborhood dispute that began late 1998 and ended with her departure from her neighborhood early in November 1999. There is no record of Ms. Ellis' involvement with the criminal justice system before or since these events. The period of the neighborhood dispute is insufficiently long to be termed as "a pattern and practice of criminal behavior over an extended period of time." Ms. Ellis' unrebutted testimony at the hearing was that since the end of 1999, she has been employed as a legal secretary in Tallahassee. Ms. Ellis testified that she works with confidential attorney-client matters and that she has maintained the accounts of law firms. Ms. Ellis' testimony at the hearing is supported by the written evidence of record, including a letter penned by Attorney Vinson Barrett, who stated that she was honest and trustworthy. Her testimony is deemed credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission withdraw its Notice of Intent to Deny the Application of Dawn J. Ellis, if she is otherwise qualified, that the Commission certify to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation that Dawn J. Ellis has satisfied the applicable statutory and rule criteria for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 25th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn J. Ellis 3409 Cedarwood Trail Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Garnett Chisenhall, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 802 - North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 S. W. Ellis, Chairman Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
