00-004749 Department Of State, Division Of Licensing vs. Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc., And William Larue Scott, President/Manager
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, May 24, 2001.


View Dockets  
Summary: Evidence shows owner of security agency carried unauthorized weapons, allowed employees to do so, and interfered with department investigation. Owner`s son, also licensed, also carried unlawful weapon. Owner`s license revoked; son`s license on probation.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION )

13OF LICENSING , )

16)

17Petitioner , )

19)

20vs. ) Case No. 00-4749

25)

26UNLIMITED CRIME PREVENTION, INC. , )

31and WILLIAM LARUE SCOTT, )

36PRESIDENT/MANAGER , )

38)

39Respondents. )

41___________________________________)

42DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION )

47OF LICENSING , )

50)

51Petitioner , )

53)

54vs. ) Case No. 00- 5131PL

60)

61WILLIAM SHANE SCOTT , )

65)

66Respondent. )

68___________________________________)

69RECOMMENDED ORDER

71A hearing was held in this case in Tampa, Florida, on

82March 22, 2001, before Arnold H. Pollock, an Administrative

91Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

99APPEARANCES

100For Petitioner : Steve Bensko, Esquire

106Department of State

109The Capitol, Mail Stat ion 4

115Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

118For Respondent : Louis Kwall, Esquire

124Kwall , Showers & Coleman, P.A.

129133 North Fort Harrison Avenue

134Clearwater, Florida 33755

137STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

141The issue for consideration in these cases is whether the

151licenses held by Respondents should be disciplined in some

160manner because of the matters alleged in the Administrative

169Complaints filed herein by the Department of State's Division

178of Licensing.

180PRELIMINARY MATTERS

182By Administra tive Complaint dated September 15, 2000,

190John M. Russell, Director of the Department of State's

199Division of Licensing (Division) alleged that Unlimited Crime

207Prevention, Inc. ( UCP ) and William Larue Scott, its President/

218Manager, holders of a security agency and of a security

228officer, an organizational officer position, and a statewide

236firearms license, respectively, had violated various

242provisions of Subsection 493.6118(1), Florida Statutes, by

249carrying and allowing other employees to carry semi-automatic

257weapons, by impersonating a law enforcement officer, by

265failing to properly supervise those employees allowed to carry

274semi-automatic weapons, by failing to truthfully respond to

282questions asked by a state investigator in the conduct of his

293duties, by making a false written report to the Division with

304intent to mislead and committing fraud thereby, and by

313refusing to cooperate with an investigator of the Division in

323the conduct of his duties.

328In a separate Administrative Complaint dated

334August 29, 2000, Mr. Russi charged Respondent William Shane

343Scott with carrying an unauthorized semi-automatic weapon in

351the performance of regulated duties, in violation of

359Subsection 493.118(1) Florida Statutes. All Respondents

365requested a formal hearing, and this hearing ensued.

373At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

381Garry Floyd, an investigator with the Division; Robert Shank,

390a bail bondsman and former employer of UCP ; Boin Gerard Upton ,

401a security officer employed by Excelsior Defense, a security

410company; Joshua T. Wilson and James Phelps, former employees

419of UCP ; and Jason Routzahn , a police officer employed by

429Indian Shores, Florida. Petitioner also introduced

435Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 9. Respondent called

442Mr. Floyd as a witness but did not introduce any documentary

453evidence.

454A Transcript of the proceedings was furnished on April 2,

4642001. Subsequent to the receipt thereof, counsel for

472Respondents filed an agreed-upon motion for an extension of

481time to file their Proposed Recommended Orders due to

490counsel's ill health. A 30-day extension was granted and

499subsequent to the expiration thereof, counsel for Petitioner

507submitted matters in writing which were carefully considered

515in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

522FINDINGS OF FACT

5251. At all times pertinent to the issues herein,

534Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc ., was licensed in Florida as a

"545Class B" Security Agency holding license number B98-00127.

553Respondent William Larue Scott, was the President/Manager of

561UCP and held a "Class D' security officer license number D93-

57219846, a "Class G" statewide firearms license number G94-

58103199, and a "Class ZB" organizational officer position

589license number ZB98-00179. William Shane Scott, son of

597William Larue Scott and an employee of UCP, held a "Class D"

609security officer license number D96-07113, a "Class ZB"

617organizational officer position license number ZB98-00180, and

624a "Class G" statewide firearms license number G97-01150. The

633Department of State, Division of Licensing, was then and is

643the state agency responsible for the licensing of non-

652certified security personnel and agencies and for the

660regulation of the non-governmental security industry in

667Florida.

6682. On June 7, 2000, Garry Floyd, an investigator with

678the Division since 1981, received a complaint that two

687security officers from UCP had been observed by security

696officers from another security firm working at a site while

706carrying unauthorized weapons. Security officers are

712authorized to carry certain weapons but not nine-millimeter

720semi-automatic pistols. Upon receipt of the complaint ,

727Mr. Floyd sent a telefax message to UCP's President/Manager,

736Mr. William L. Scott, asking for an explanation. The

745following day, an individual who identified himself as

753Mr. William L. Scott, called and said he had received

763Mr. Floyd's message and was looking into the matter. At this

774point, Mr. Scott said he was one of the two security officers

786involved but that he and his associate were carrying

795revolvers, not semi-automatic weapons. Thereafter, on

801June 11, 2000, Mr. Scott sent Mr. Floyd a telefaxed memorandum

812in which he reiterated his denial of the allegations as to the

824weapons carried, explained that the allegations occurred

831because of animosity toward his firm, and requested the

840investigation be terminated because of a lack of evidence.

8493. On June 27, 2000, Mr. Floyd met with Robert Shank ,

860the other security officer alleged to have been carrying the

870unauthorized weapon and questioned him about the allegations.

878Shank vehemently denied the allegations and continued to do so

888even after Floyd said he did not believe him.

8974. On July 3, 2000, Mr. Floyd went to Mr. Scott's home

909where Scott maintained UCP's home office. Though Floyd went

918there with the intention of speaking with Mr. Scott, he was

929unable to do so and spoke, instead, with Mrs. Scott, whom he

941asked to have Mr. Scott call him. Mr. Scott did not call as

954requested, however. Thereafter, on July 17, 2000, Mr. Floyd

963went to UCP's new office, but because so many other people

974were there, so as not to embarrass Mr. Scott, he made an

986appointment to come back on August 2, 2000.

9945. When Mr. Floyd spoke with Mr. Scott on August 2,

10052000, he gave Mr. Scott a list of questions he had written

1017down. Scott said he was not ready to admit anything and would

1029not answer any questions, orally or in writing. As of the

1040hearing, Mr. Scott had not answered any of the questions posed

1051by Mr. Floyd. The questions are simple. They ask, primarily,

1061about the ownership of the company and the positions held

1071therein by both Scott and his son, as well as whether he has

1084ever allowed any employee to carry semi-automatic weapons.

10926. Mr. Floyd also met with Eric Hege, an employee of

1103UCP, and provided him with a list of eight questions, two of

1115which concerned the type of firearms carried by Mr. Scott.

1125However, Mr. Hege refused to answer the questionnaire. This

1134stymied Mr. Floyd's investigation, and he could proceed no

1143further with it. However, sometime during the first week of

1153July, 2000, Mr. Floyd received a complaint from a local police

1164department that UCP was using an unlawful scheme of colored

1174lights on its vehicles. When he went to various places where

1185ICP's vehicles were located, he saw that they did have

1195unlawfully colored lights which could give the impression they

1204were official police vehicles. One vehicle had a green light

1214on the seat, and another had a blue light. Blue lights are

1226not allowed on civilian vehicles. Only amber-colored

1233emergency lights are allowed on civilian vehicles.

12407. Mr. Shank previously held a license to carry a semi-

1251automatic weapon, but not during the period he was employed

1261performing security duties for Respondent. He surrendered

1268that license after he, too, was charged with carrying an

1278unauthorized weapon. Though he was not licensed to do so,

1288while he was on duty with UCP, he carried a semi-automatic

1299weapon or, in the alternative, a revolver. He started

1308carrying the revolver so that he would not violate the law.

1319Mr. Shank is certain that William L. Scott knew he was

1330carrying an unauthorized weapon because Scott purchased

1337revolvers for himself and the others in July 2000, so they

1348would not be in violation of the law. When Shank had pointed

1360out that the semi-automatic weapons were against state law,

1369William L. Scott replied, "Fuck the State. The statutes don't

1379mean anything."

13818. On June 2, 2000, Mr. Shank, with William L. Scott's

1392son and several other employees of UCP, was working as a

1403security officer at The Harbor Club in Pinellas County. At

1413that time he was carrying a semi-automatic weapon, as was

1423Mr. Scott's son. He was of the opinion at the time that

1435William L. Scott's approach was to violate the law regarding

1445weapons and deny it if caught.

14519. In late July or early August 2000, William L. Scott

1462held a meeting of his employees at which time he instructed

1473them, among other things, that if Mr. Floyd were to contact

1484them about the incident at The Harbor Club, they were not to

1496give him any information. He also provided each security

1505officer with a letter which instructed them, in the event they

1516were contacted by any personnel from the Division of

1525Licensing, to immediately notify their supervisor and to

1533advise the state personnel that they could not be distracted

1543from their duties. Employees were not to speak with a state

1554employee until a supervisor had relieved him, nor were they

1564ever to hand over their firearms to an inspector unless

1574properly relieved. Investigators were to be referred to the

1583company's attorney, and if the investigator refused to leave,

1592the police were to be called.

159810. Mr. Shank has also performed services for UCP using

1608a vehicle with green and red flashing lights on the roof. So

1620have both Scotts and Mr. Hege. Mr. Shank was subsequently

1630charged with driving a vehicle with improper lights as well as

1641carrying a semi-automatic weapon.

164511. William L. Scott and Mr. Shank had a falling out

1656over money in early September 2000. Shank then called Mr.

1666Floyd to tell him what he knew of the allegations because he

1678felt it was the right thing to do.

168612. When Boin Upton, at the time an employee of

1696Excelsior Defense, also a security firm, came to work at The

1707Harbor Club on June 2, 2000, he found representatives of UCP

1718already were there. He thought this was unusual because he

1728understood that his company had the contract to provide

1737security for the club. He called his supervisor who came to

1748the club and resolved the issue. A the time, however, he

1759noticed that both Mr. Shank and William L. Scott, the two

1770representatives of UCP, were carrying nine-millimeter semi-

1777automatic weapons. When Mr. Upton asked about this, he was

1787told by Mr. Shank that he had a "CC" waiver. A "CC" license

1800is one which is issued to an apprentice private investigator

1810and does not authorize the carrying of a semi-automatic

1819weapon.

182013. Joshua Wilson also was a security guard who worked

1830for UCP from July 7 through the end of August 2000, and whose

1843duty stations were at the Lutz Apartment complex and at The

1854Harbor Club. His job was to observe and report and to keep

1866the peace, and he was not armed. However, he observed

1876William S. Scott, William L. Scott's son carrying a nine-

1886millimeter semi-automatic weapon at The Harbor Club during

1894this period.

189614. Mr. Wilson recalls a staff meeting held by Mr. Scott

1907during this period at which Mr. Scott discussed the

1916investigation being conducted by the Division. At this

1924meeting, he gave each employee a copy of the memorandum which

1935advised employees not to talk with anyone from the Division

1945but to refer them to a UCP supervisor. Scott indicated his

1956opinion that Mr. Floyd had declared war on UCP and him, and he

1969would not help him.

197315. Another former employee of UCP, Mr. Phelps, also

1982recalls being told directly by Mr. Scott that if an

1992investigator from the Division contacted him with questions

2000about the company, he was not to answer them.

200916. In mid-June 2000, Officer Jim Routzahn of the Indian

2019Shore Police Department conducted a routine traffic stop of

2028William L. Scott. Mr. Scott got out of his vehicle wearing a

2040uniform and badge and carrying a semi-automatic weapon.

2048Scott's badge was in the form of a shield and not a star.

2061Mr. Scott advised Officer Routzhan that he was the owner of a

2073security company and was on official duty dropping off and

2083picking up security officers. At the time, because Officer

2092Routzahn received a high-priority call to go elsewhere, he

2101gave Mr. Scott a warning and let him go.

211017. According to Mr. Floyd, a search of the records of

2121the Division of Licensing fails to show any prior complaints

2131against either UCP or either Mr. Scott. However, the records

2141reflect William L. Scott was previously denied a license based

2151on a conviction in Indiana. Mr. Floyd has known William L.

2162Scott from when he, Mr. Floyd, was an investigator for another

2173agency. During that former investigation, he found Mr. Scott

2182to be very personable, helpful, and cooperative.

218918. Mr. Floyd, a retired Captain of Police from Tampa ,

2199considers this case to be serious because it involves the

2209impersonation of a policeman. Based on his experience,

" 2217wanna-be's" constitute one of the biggest problems facing law

2226enforcement, and even if the only issue here were related to

2237the inappropriate use of colored lights on UCP's vehicles, he

2247would still have filed an Administrative Complaint in this

2256case.

2257CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

226019. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2267jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

2277proceeding. Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

228220. Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes, authorizes the

2289Division to discipline the license of a license holder for

2299specified misconduct. Included in those activities which

2306support discipline, as outlined in Subsection 493.6118(1),

2313Florida Statutes, are:

2316(f ) Proof that the . . . licensee is

2326guilty of fraud or deceit, or of

2333negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in

2338the practice of the activities regulated .

2345. .

2347( i ) Impersonating, or permitting or

2354aiding and abetting an employee to

2360impersonate, a law enforcement officer or

2366an employee of the state, the United

2373States, or any political subdivision

2378thereof by identifying himself

2382. . . as a . . . law enforcement officer,

2393. . . by wearing a uniform or presenting

2402or displaying a badge or credentials that

2409would cause a reasonable person to believe

2416that he or she is a law enforcement

2424officer, or that he or she has official

2432authority, by displaying any flashing or

2438warning vehicular lights other than amber

2444colored, . . .

2448(k ) Knowingly violating, advising,

2453encouraging, or assisting the violation of

2459any statute, court order, capias, warrant,

2465injunction, or cease and desist order, in

2472the course of business regulated under this

2479chapter.

2480* * *

2483(t ) Violating any provision of this

2490chapter.

249121. The burden of proof in this case rests with the

2502Division to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

2511Respondents committed the misconduct alleged. Department of

2518Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Company , 670 So. 2d

2529932 (Fla. 1996).

253222. In the instant case, the Division alleged that

2541Respondent William L. Scott wrongfully carried and permitted

2549his employees to carry unauthorized semi-automatic weapons

2556while performing security guard duties; failed to respond

2564truthfully to questions asked by a state investigator in the

2574course of an investigation into Respondent's activities; made

2582a false report to the Division with the intent to mislead; and

2594refused to cooperate with an investigator of the Division in

2604the course of his duties by directing his employees to refuse

2615to answer questions posed by the investigator. Respondent

2623William S. Scott is charged with carrying an unauthorized

2632semi-automatic weapon in the performance of his regulated

2640duties. The allegations against both Respondents, if proven,

2648would constitute violations of Subsection 493.6118(1), Florida

2655Statutes.

265623. T he evidence of record is clear and convincing that

2667both Scotts, repeatedly carried unauthorized semi-automatic

2673weapons while engaged in the performance of regulated security

2682guard duties and that William L. Scott knew that at least one

2694of his employees, Mr. Shank, did so as well. Carrying an

2705unauthorized weapon in the performance of security duties

2713constitutes a violation of Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes.

2721The personal misconduct of William L. Scott, as President and

2731Manager of UCP, is attributable to the corporate licensee as

2741well.

274224. The evidence of record also clearly and convincingly

2751establishes that William L. Scott used green and red lights on

2762his UCP vehicle. This action is improper and prohibited by

2772Sections 316.2397 and 316.2398, Florida Statutes. As such it

2781is a violation of Subsections 493.6118(f), ( i), and (k),

2791Florida Statutes.

279325. Subsection 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes, provides

2799in part:

2801(2 ) In any investigation by the

2808department, each licensed or unlicensed

2813person, applicant, agency, or employee

2818shall, upon request of the department

2824provide records and shall truthfully

2829respond to questions concerning activities

2834regulated under this chapter. Such records

2840shall be maintained in this state for a

2848period of 2 years at the principal place of

2857business of the licensee, . . . Upon

2865request by the department the records must

2872be made available immediately to the

2878department unless the department determines

2883that an extension may be granted.

288926. The evidence of record is clear that not on ly did

2901William L. Scott refuse to answer the legitimate questions

2910posed to him by Mr. Floyd, he also directed his employees to

2922refuse to answer as well. Though the instructions given to

2932the employees superficially appear legitimate, it is clear

2940from the other evidence of record, including the graphic

2949comments regarding the Department's inquiry made by the elder

2958Mr. Scott, that they were no more than a screen to cover this

2971attempt to conceal his activities from legitimate

2978investigation. It is also clear from the evidence of record

2988that when he did agree to speak with Mr. Floyd, William L.

3000Scott misrepresented the comments of his employees which

3008confirmed his misconduct. Mr. Scott's actions fell within the

3017parameters of Subsection 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes, and

3024constitute grounds for discipline as a violation of Subsection

3033493.6118(t), Florida Statutes, which authorizes discipline for

3040a violation of any provision of Chapter 493.

304827. When the Department finds any violation has been

3057committed by a licensee, pursuant to the provisions of

3066Subsection 493.6118(2), Florida Statutes, it may take one or

3075more of the following actions:

3080(a ) Deny an application for the issuance

3088or renewal of a license.

3093(b ) Issue a reprimand.

3098(c ) Impose an administrative fine not to

3106exceed $1,000 for every count or separate

3114offense.

3115(d ) Place the licensee on probation for

3123a period of time and subject to such

3131conditions as the department may specify.

3137(e ) Suspend or revoke a license.

314429. The Department's guidelines fo r the imposition of

3153discipline of licensed personnel shown to have committed

3161actionable violations of the law are contained in

3169Rule 1C-3.113(1), Florida Administrative Code. For each

3176incident of allowing an employee to carry an unauthorized

3185firearm, as alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the

3196Administrative Complaint, the Department may impose a penalty

3204which ranges from an administrative fine of from $300 to $700

3215and place the licensee on probation.

322130. For the offense of impersonating a law enforceme nt

3231officer as alleged in Count IV of the Administrative

3240complaint, William L. Scott is subject to a penalty ranging

3250from an administrative fine of $500 to $1,000 to suspension or

3262revocation of his license. For the offense of carrying an

3272unauthorized firearm, both William L. Scott and William S.

3281Scott each are subject to a penalty ranging from an

3291administrative fine of from $150 to $300 to revocation or

3301suspension of their licenses.

330531. For the offense of failing to properly supervise

3314armed employees, Mr. Shank and William S. Scott, Respondent

3323William L. Scott is subject to a penalty ranging from an

3334administrative fine of from $250 to $750 to probation or a

3345suspension of his license for one month. The Departmental

3354disciplinary guidelines are silent regarding a licensee's

3361failure to respond truthfully to legitimate questions posed by

3370a Department investigator engaged in the conduct of an

3379official investigation, regarding a willful making of a false

3388written report, and regarding the licensee's instructions to

3396his employees to refuse to cooperate with Department

3404investigators.

340532. There are, however, sufficient proven incidents of

3413misconduct by each of Respondents to allow the tailoring of a

3424penalty appropriate to the circumstances of this case. The

3433Department suggests that all licenses held by William L. Scott

3443be revoked and that he be administratively fined in the amount

3454of $1,000. This recommendation is made based upon the

3464Department's determination that William L. Scott presents a

3472danger to the public in his capacity as a security agency

3483owner and a security officer, as well as a holder of a firearm

3496license. This determination appears to have been made based

3505on his attitude toward the Department's investigation and

3513toward the investigator as well. The Department suggests that

3522Mr. Scott has demonstrated an attitude of contempt toward

3531authority and appeared willing to attempt to subvert the

3540investigatory process, both of which demonstrate a lack of

3549integrity which is inconsistent with the performance of

3557security duties. Based on the evidence presented at hearing,

3566this determination appears well founded. While it is obvious

3575Mr. Scott should not be engaged in the security profession at

3586this time, imposition of an administrative fine would serve no

3596rehabilitory purpose.

359833. As for William S. Scott, the Department suggests as

3608an appropriate penalty the suspension of his firearms license

3617for one year. Implementation of this penalty would not

3626prevent him from performing the duties of an unarmed security

3636officer and appears appropriate, but absent a showing of any

3646prior discipline, imposition of probation rather than

3653suspension would appear appropriate.

3657RECOMMENDATION

3658Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

3667of Law, it is recommended that the Department of State,

3677Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order revoking the Class

"3687B" Security Agency License number B98-00127, the Class "D"

3696Security Officer License number D93-19846, the Class "G"

3704Statewide Firearms License number G94-03199, and the Class

" 3712ZB " Organization Officer Position, number ZB98 -00179, all

3720licenses held by William Larue Scott as President/Manager of

3729Unlimited Crime Prevention, Inc., be revoked. It is further

3738recommended that the Class "G" Statewide Firearms License

3746number G97-01150, held by William Shane Scott be placed on

3756probation for a period of one year under such terms and

3767conditions as the Department may specify.

3773DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2001, in

3783Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3787___________________________________

3788ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

3791Administrative Law Judge

3794Division of Administrative Hearings

3798The DeSoto Building

38011230 Apalachee Parkway

3804Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3807(850) 488- 9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3812Fax Filing (850) 921-6947

3816www.doah.state.fl.us

3817Filed with the Clerk of the

3823Division of Administrative Hearings

3827this 24th day of May, 2001.

3833COPIES FURNISHED:

3835Steve Bensko, Esquire

3838Department of State

3841The Capitol, Mail Station 4

3846Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

3849Louis Kwall, Esquire

3852Kwall , Showers & Coleman, P.A.

3857133 North Fort Harrison Avenue

3862Clearwater, Florida 33755

3865Honorable Katherine Harris

3868Secretary of State

3871The Capitol, Plaza Level 02

3876Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

3879Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel

3884Department of State

3887The Capitol, Lower Level 10

3892Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

3895NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3901All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

391115 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any

3921exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the

3931agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2024
Proceedings: Agency Miscellaneous
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2004
Proceedings: Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/20/2001
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2001
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2001
Proceedings: Exception to Recommended Order filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held March 22, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2001
Proceedings: Order issued (the parties shall file their proposed recommended orders by May 15, 200).
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2001
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 04/02/2001
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 03/22/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 03/19/2001
Proceedings: Order Admitting Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions issued.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2001
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing issued. (hearing set for March 22, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa, FL, amended as to place).
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2001
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Video Teleconference issued. (hearing scheduled for March 22, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa and Tallahassee, FL, amended as to video).
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Witness List and Exhibit List March 22, 2001 Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Expedite Deeming Admitted Petitioner`s Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2001
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued (consolidated cases are: 00-4749, 00-5131).
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2001
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 00-004749, 00-005131PL)
PDF:
Date: 12/19/2000
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for March 22, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa, FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/18/2000
Proceedings: Motion to Continue filed by Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2000
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for January 8, 2001; 9:30 a.m.; Tampa, FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2000
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed by Petitioner.
Date: 11/27/2000
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2000
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2000
Proceedings: Amended Petition for Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2000
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2000
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Date Filed:
11/27/2000
Date Assignment:
03/16/2001
Last Docket Entry:
06/21/2004
Location:
Tampa, Florida
District:
Middle
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):