08-002072PL Department Of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission vs. John T. Marich
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, October 30, 2008.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent took fuel from employer for his personal use or for the use of someone not entitled to use the fuel.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, )

13CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND )

18TRAINING COMMISSION, )

21)

22Petitioner, )

24)

25vs. ) Case No. 08-2072PL

30)

31JOHN T. MARICH, )

35)

36Respondent. )

38)

39RECOMMENDED ORDER

41Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

52on August 21 and 22, 2008, in Apalachicola, Florida, before

62Susan B. Harrell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the

72Division of Administrative Hearings.

76APPEARANCES

77For Petitioner: Joseph S. White, Esquire

83Department of Law Enforcement

87Post Office Box 1489

91Tallahassee, Florida 32302

94For Respondent: Philip F. Lupo, Esquire

100319 South Washington Avenue, Suite 102

106Titusville, Florida 32796-3589

109STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

113The issues are whether Respondent violated Subsections

120943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2007), 1 and Florida

129Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and, if so, what

137discipline should be imposed.

141PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

143On February 6, 2008, Petitioner, Department of Law

151Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission

158(Commission), filed an Administrative Complaint against

164Respondent, John T. Marich (Mr. Marich), alleging that he had

174violated Subsections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida

180Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-

18727.0011(4)(b). Mr. Marich requested an administrative hearing,

194and the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative

204Hearings on April 24, 2008, for assignment to an Administrative

214Law Judge to conduct the final hearing. The case was originally

225assigned to Administrative Law Judge Charles C. Adams, but was

235transferred to Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Harrell to

244conduct the final hearing.

248The final hearing was originally scheduled for June 17,

2572008. Mr. Marich moved for a continuance, and the final hearing

268was re-scheduled for July 21, 2008. Mr. Marich moved for

278another continuance, and the final hearing was re-scheduled for

287August 22, 2008. The parties later advised that the final

297hearing would take two days, and the final hearing was re-

308scheduled to commence on August 21, 2008.

315On August 1, 2008, the Commission filed its first and

325second notices of its intention to rely on similar fact

335evidence.

336On August 14, 2008, the Commission filed an unopposed

345Motion for Leave to Amend the Administrative Complaint. The

354motion was granted, and the Commission filed an Amended

363Administrative Complaint on August 19, 2008.

369The parties entered into a Pre-hearing Stipulation and

377stipulated to certain facts contained in Section (8) of the Pre-

388hearing Stipulation. Those facts have been incorporated into

396this Recommended Order, to the extent relevant.

403At the final hearing, the Commission called the following

412witnesses: Chester Creamer, James Ward, Goldie Harris, Rodney

420Glass, and Dewey Williams. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 2 were

430admitted in evidence. Mr. Marich testified in his own behalf

440and called the following witnesses: John Ford, Jonathan Riley,

449Robert Shelley, Mike Mock, Anthony Sapp, Bruce Varnes, and

458Charles Nichols. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 and 6 were admitted in

468evidence.

469The three-volume Transcript was filed on September 5, 2008.

478The parties agreed to file their proposed recommended orders

487within ten days of the filing of the Transcript. On

497September 12, 2008, Respondent filed a request for extension of

507time to file proposed recommended orders. The request was

516granted by Order dated September 12, 2008, extending the time

526for filing proposed recommended orders to October 15, 2008. The

536parties timely-filed their Proposed Recommended Orders, which

543were considered in preparation of this Recommended Order.

551FINDINGS OF FACT

5541. Mr. Marich was certified by the Commission on

563February 2, 1971, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate

572Number 47090. At all times material to the Amended

581Administrative Complaint, Mr. Marich was employed as a law

590enforcement officer with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office

598(Sheriff’s Office).

6002. In October and part of November 2007, Mr. Marich was a

612lieutenant assigned to the duty of road supervisor, which meant

622that he supervised six men in 12-hour shifts. Mr. Marich was

633issued a marked patrol car to use in the performance of his law

646enforcement duties. Mr. Marich’s patrol car was a Ford Crown

656Victoria. No evidence was presented to establish the year the

666patrol car was manufactured.

6703. The Sheriff’s Office provided gasoline to run the

679patrol cars assigned to its employees. The gasoline was the

689property of the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office's

697fueling station was located behind the jail. The fueling

706station is a self-serve station. Each officer would pump the

716gasoline into his or her patrol car and log the amount on a log

730book kept near the pump.

7354. The gasoline dispensed from the pump by the law

745enforcement officers was to be used only by the law enforcement

756officers to carry out their official duties. The Sheriff’s

765Office, as owner of the gasoline, did not authorize or consent

776to any appropriation of gasoline for any law enforcement

785officer’s private use or personal benefit.

7915. In October and November 2007, Mr. Marich carried one or

802more gasoline cans in the trunk of his patrol car. His

813supervisor, Major Chester Creamer, did not direct Mr. Marich to

823carry gasoline cans in his patrol car to assist stranded

833motorists or other deputies. Major Creamer is not aware of any

844of the other Sheriff's Office's law enforcement personnel

852carrying gasoline cans in their patrol cars.

8596. Mr. Marich worked 12-hour shifts from 6:00 p.m. to

8696:00 a.m. on October 26 and 27, 2007; October 28 and 29, 2007;

882October 31 and November 1, 2007; November 5 and 6, 2007; and

894November 6 and 7, 2007. On the intervening days, Mr. Marich was

906not on duty.

9097. The Sheriff’s Office had reason to believe that

918gasoline was being taken without authorization from the

926Sheriff’s Office’s fueling station. Surveillance video cameras

933were set up at the fueling station. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 is a

945video disc made from the recordings of the surveillance video

955cameras. The disc fairly and accurately depicts Mr. Marich on

965October 27 and 29, 2007, and November 2, 6, and 7, 2007, while

978at the fueling station located at the Sheriff’s Office,

987knowingly dispensing gasoline into the fuel tank of his assigned

997Sheriff’s Office's patrol car and also into a gasoline can or

1008cans located in the trunk of Mr. Marich’s patrol car.

10188. Mr. Marich claims that the gasoline which he was

1028dispensing into gasoline cans in the trunk of his patrol car was

1040used for official purposes. He claims that he helped stranded

1050motorists; that he used more than a tank of gasoline on each

1062shift and needed the extra gasoline so that he would not run out

1075of gasoline; and that his wife, who is an employee of the

1087Sheriff’s Office, would often forget to fill her Sheriff’s

1096Office's vehicle with gasoline, and he had to put gasoline in

1107her vehicle from the cans in the trunk of his patrol car.

11199. It is not a frequent occurrence for the Sheriff's

1129Office's law enforcement officers to help motorists who have run

1139out of gasoline. Normally, a deputy assisting such motorists

1148would take the motorist to the nearest service station so that

1159the motorist can purchase gasoline or the deputy would get a

1170gasoline can and go to the nearest service station to get

1181gasoline, and the motorist would be responsible for paying for

1191the gasoline. However, there have been exceptions to this

1200method of aiding stranded motorists when the motorist was unable

1210to pay for the gasoline. A deputy could get enough gasoline

1221from the Sheriff's Office's fueling station to get the motorist

1231home. The deputy was to log the amount of gasoline taken and

1243note in the log that the gasoline was for a stranded motorist.

125510. Mr. Marich has provided stranded motorists with

1263gasoline from the cans in the back of his patrol car in the

1276past. On one such occasion, he was called by the then sheriff

1288to aid a motorist who had run out of gasoline. Mr. Marich

1300responded to the call and provided the motorist with gasoline.

1310The then sheriff approved of Mr. Marich carrying gasoline in the

1321trunk of his patrol car for such purposes.

132911. When a Sheriff's Office's law enforcement officer

1337encounters a disabled vehicle, including vehicles that are out

1346of gasoline, the officer is to advise the dispatcher for the

1357Sheriff’s Office that he or she has encountered a disabled

1367vehicle and give the location of the vehicle. The officer is

1378also supposed to log the encounter on the Sheriff's Office's

1388computer system and to run a check on the vehicle's license tag

1400to make sure the vehicle is not stolen. From October 27 through

1412November 7, 2007, the records for the Sheriff's Office do not

1423contain any record of Mr. Marich encountering a disabled vehicle

1433and providing assistance to a stranded motorist. No evidence

1442was provided to establish that Mr. Marich noted on the log that

1454he had used gasoline for a stranded motorist.

146212. On at least one occasion prior to October 2007,

1472Mr. Marich has provided gasoline from the cans in the back of

1484his patrol car to a deputy, other than his wife, who had run out

1498of fuel.

150013. No evidence was presented to rebut Mr. Marich’s claims

1510that he used the gasoline that he put in the cans in the back of

1525his patrol car for the patrol car that his wife used in her

1538official duties with the Sheriff’s Office. Thus, his testimony

1547is credited.

154914. No evidence was presented to rebut Mr. Marich’s claims

1559that he used the gasoline that he put in the cans in the back of

1574his patrol car for his patrol car while he was on road patrol.

1587Thus, his testimony is credited.

159215. Mr. Marich was terminated from his employment with the

1602Sheriff’s Office on November 7, 2007, for the unauthorized

1611taking of gasoline. Major Creamer inspected Mr. Marich’s patrol

1620car within an hour of Mr. Marich’s termination. Major Creamer

1630noticed a strong smell of gasoline in the interior of the car,

1642which was emanating from the trunk of the car. The odor

1653lingered after several cleanings, and the matting had to be

1663removed from the trunk to get rid of the gasoline smell.

167416. During 2006 and 2007, Mr. Marich drove a blue, two-

1685tone Dodge pickup truck as one of his personal vehicles. On two

1697occasions, Mr. Marich was observed siphoning gasoline from a

1706Sheriff’s Office's patrol car into a gasoline can and pouring

1716the gasoline into a blue, two-tone Dodge pickup truck. However,

1726the Commission did not establish by clear and convincing

1735evidence that the gasoline in the patrol car was the property of

1747the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Marich could have bought the gasoline

1757and put it in the patrol car. Thus, the siphoning of the

1769gasoline does not establish that Mr. Marich stole the gasoline.

177917. There was testimony from a mechanic, who had worked on

1790the Sheriff’s Office’s patrol cars for several years, that Ford

1800Crown Victoria's had an anti-siphoning device which prevented

1808gasoline from being siphoned from the fuel tank. The mechanic

1818did not know when Ford Motor Company began installing the anti-

1829siphoning devices and had not examined the patrol car driven by

1840Mr. Marich to determine whether it contained an anti-siphoning

1849device or to determine whether anyone had tampered with the

1859gasoline nozzle. Thus, the mechanic’s testimony is not credited

1868with establishing that gasoline could not be siphoned from the

1878patrol car driven by Mr. Marich.

188418. The evidence is not clear and convincing that

1893Mr. Marich used the gasoline that he put in the gasoline cans in

1906the trunk of patrol car on the dates alleged in the Amended

1918Administrative Complaint for his personal benefit or for the

1927benefit of others who were not authorized to use the gasoline.

1938CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

194119. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1948jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

1959proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2008).

196720. The Commission has the burden of establishing the

1976allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and

1985convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v.

1993Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). Clear and

2005convincing evidence has been described by the courts as follows:

2015[C]lear and convincing evidence requires

2020that the evidence must be found to be

2028credible; the facts to which the witnesses

2035testify must be distinctly remembered; the

2041testimony must be precise and explicit and

2048the witness must be lacking in confusion as

2056to the facts in issue. The evidence must be

2065of such weight that it produces in the mind

2074of the trier of fact the firm belief or

2083conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

2089truth of the allegations sought to be

2096established.

2097Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

210921. The Commission has alleged that Mr. Marich violated

2118Subsections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and

2125Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), in that he

2133“did knowingly and unlawfully obtain or use or did endeavor to

2144obtain or use, money or property valued at one hundred dollars

2155($100) or more, the property of the Franklin County Sheriff’s

2165Office, with the unlawful intent to either temporarily or

2174permanently deprive the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office of a

2183right to the property or a benefit therefrom or to appropriate

2194the money or property to his own use or to the use of any person

2209not entitled thereto.” The Commission alleged that these

2217actions violated provisions of Subsection 812.014(2)(e), Florida

2224Statutes, or any lesser included offenses.

223022. Subsection 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, provides:

2236(7) Upon a finding by the commission that a

2245certified officer has not maintained good

2251moral character, the definition of which has

2258been adopted by rule and is established as a

2267statewide standard, as required by

2272s. 943.13(7), the commission may enter an

2279order imposing one or more of the following

2287penalties:

2288(a) Revocation of certification.

2292(b) Suspension of certification for a

2298period not to exceed 2 years.

2304(c) Placement on a probationary status for

2311a period not to exceed 2 years, subject to

2320terms and conditions imposed by the

2326commission. Upon the violation of such

2332terms and conditions, the commission may

2338revoke certification or impose additional

2343penalties as enumerated in this subsection.

2349(d) Successful completion by the officer of

2356any basic recruit, advanced, or career

2362development training or such retraining

2367deemed appropriate by the commission.

2372(e) Issuance of a reprimand.

237723. Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, provides that

2384law enforcement officers shall “[h]ave a good moral character as

2394determined by a background investigation under procedures

2401established by the commission.”

240524. Florida Administrative Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b)

2410provides:

2411(4) For the purposes of the Criminal

2418Justice Standards and Training Commission’s

2423implementation of any of the penalties

2429specified in Section 943.1395(6) or (7),

2435F.S., a certified officer’s failure to

2441maintain good moral character required by

2447Section 943.13(7), F.S., is defined as:

2453* * *

2456(b) The perpetration by an officer of an

2464act that would constitute any of the

2471following misdemeanor or criminal offenses

2476whether criminally prosecuted or not:

24811. Sections . . . 812.014, . . . F.S.

249125. Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, provides:

2497(1) A person commits theft if he or she

2506knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to

2513obtain or to use, the property of another

2521with intent to, either temporarily or

2527permanently:

2528(a) Deprive the other person of a right to

2537the property or a benefit from the property.

2545(b) Appropriate the property to his or her

2553own use or to the use of any person not

2563entitled to the use of the property.

257026. It is undisputed that on October 27 and 29, 2007, and

2582November 2, 6, and 7, 2007, Mr. Marich did pump gasoline

2593belonging to the Sheriff’s Office into one or more gasoline cans

2604in the trunk of his patrol car while on duty as a deputy sheriff

2618for the Sheriff’s Office.

262227. The evidence does not establish by clear and

2631convincing evidence that Mr. Marich took the gasoline on the

2641dates in question for his personal benefit or for the benefit of

2653other persons who were not entitled to use the gasoline.

2663Testimony of witnesses did establish that in the past

2672Mr. Marich had used the Sheriff’s Office's gasoline for stranded

2682motorists, for use in his patrol car for his official duties,

2693and for other law enforcement personnel in their official

2702duties, including his wife. There was evidence to establish

2711that Mr. Marich had siphoned gasoline from a Sheriff’s Office's

2721patrol car and put the gasoline into a pickup truck. However,

2732there was no clear and convincing evidence that that the

2742gasoline in the patrol car came from the Sheriff’s Office’s

2752fueling station.

275428. The Commission established that Mr. Marich siphoned

2762gasoline from a Sheriff's Office's patrol car on two occasions.

2772However, the Amended Administrative Complaint did not allege

2780that Mr. Marich had stolen gasoline from the Sheriff’s Office on

2791those two occasions. Mr. Marich can not be found guilty of a

2803violation of conduct not alleged in the Amended Administrative

2812Complaint. See Marcelin v. State Dept. of Business and

2821Professional Regulation , 753 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

2831Additionally, even if the siphoning of the gasoline had been

2841alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence

2849did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the

2859gasoline in the patrol car was the property of the Sheriff's

2870Office.

287129. The Commission has failed to establish that Mr. Marich

2881violated Subsections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(7), Florida

2887Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b).

2894RECOMMENDATION

2895Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

2905Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding

2916that John T. Marich did not violate Subsections 943.13(7) and

2926943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

2933Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and dismissing the Amended

2939Administrative Complaint.

2941DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2008, in

2951Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

2955S

2956SUSAN B. HARRELL

2959Administrative Law Judge

2962Division of Administrative Hearings

2966The DeSoto Building

29691230 Apalachee Parkway

2972Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

2975(850) 488-9675

2977Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

2981www.doah.state.fl.us

2982Filed with the Clerk of the

2988Division of Administrative Hearings

2992this 30th day of October, 2008.

2998ENDNOTE

29991/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

3008Statutes are to the 2007 version.

3014COPIES FURNISHED :

3017Joseph S. White, Esquire

3021Department of Law Enforcement

3025Post Office Box 1489

3029Tallahassee, Florida 32302

3032Philip F. Lupo, Esquire

3036319 South Washington Avenue, Suite 102

3042Titusville, Florida 32796-3589

3045Michael Ramage, General Counsel

3049Department of Law Enforcement

3053Post Office Box 1489

3057Tallahassee, Florida 32302

3060Michael Crews, Program Director

3064Division of Criminal Justice

3068Professionalism Services

3070Department of Law Enforcement

3074Post Office Box 1489

3078Tallahassee, Florida 32302

3081NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3087All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

309715 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3108to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3119will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2009
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2008
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Depositions to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held August 21-22, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2008
Proceedings: (Respondent`s corrected Proposed) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2008
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Harrell from Philip F. Lupo regarding corrected Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2008
Proceedings: (Respondent`s Proposed) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (proposed recommended orders to be filed by October 15, 2008).
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2008
Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion for Additional Time to File Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 09/05/2008
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I-III) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of Major Chester Creamer (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of Sergeant Jonathan Riley (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of John Solomon (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of Deputy Jim Ward (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of Captain Brad Segree (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of Sheriff Mike Mock (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: Deposition of Sergeant Goldie Harris (filed with Judge at hearing) filed.
Date: 08/21/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Order Quashing Subpoena.
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2008
Proceedings: Motion to Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2008
Proceedings: Amended Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2008
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2008
Proceedings: Amended Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for August 21 and 22, 2008; 10:00 a.m.; Apalachicola, FL).
Date: 08/14/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2008
Proceedings: Amended Motion to Extend Hearing Time or, in the Alternative, for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Second Notice of Petitioner's Reliance on Similar Fact Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Petitioner's Reliance on Similar Fact Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Petitioner's Service of Responses to Respondent's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2008
Proceedings: Order on Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2008
Proceedings: Response to Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2008
Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination and Duces Tecum (4) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for August 22, 2008; 10:00 a.m.; Apalachicola, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2008
Proceedings: Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/11/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/25/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for July 21, 2008; 10:00 a.m.; Apalachicola, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2008
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order of Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2008
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Return of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Subpoena Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Captain E. Segree) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Major C. Creamer) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination and Duces Tecum (Sheriff M. Mock) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 17, 2008; 10:00 a.m.; Apalachicola, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2008
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2008
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2008
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.

Case Information

Judge:
SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND
Date Filed:
04/24/2008
Date Assignment:
07/28/2008
Last Docket Entry:
02/27/2009
Location:
Apalachicola, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
PL
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):