06-000833 Commodore Bradford vs. Criminal Justice Standards And Training Commission Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 20, 2006.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that the scoring of his law enforcement officer`s certification exam was arbitrary or capricious.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COMMODORE BRADFORD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 0833

)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS )

AND TRAINING COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

RECO MMENDED ORDER

Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing by

videoconference in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 2006.

Petitioner and an employee of Respondent participated by

videoco nference in West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent's

attorney and witnesses attended the hearing in Tallahassee.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Commodore Bradford, pro se

13628 Folkstone Court

Wellington, Florida 33414

For Respondent: Grace A. Jaye

Assistant General Counsel

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Criminal Justice Standards and

Training Commission

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 - 1489

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing

score on the law enforcement officer certification examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated February 7, 2006, Respondent informed

Petitioner that it had completed its review of the questions and

answers that Petitioner had challenged and had determined that

the questions were clearly worded, the questions presented

enough informat ion to allow the examinee to select the correct

answer, the relevant curriculum supported the correct answer,

and the information used to determine the correct answer was

current. The letter states that Respondent had determined that

Petitioner was not du e additional credit for his answers.

Petitioner requested a formal hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioner called one witness and offered

into evidence one exhibit: Petitioner Exhibit 1. Respondent

called three witnesses and offered into evidence eight exh ibits:

Respondent Exhibits 1 - 8. All exhibits were admitted.

The court reporter did not file a transcript. On June 19,

2006, Petitioner filed a letter, and Respondent filed a proposed

recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the law enforc ement officer

certification examination on October 20, 2005. He needs to

obtain credit for two more correct answers in order to pass the

test. Respondent has challenged the scoring of five questions.

2. The first challenged question asked what an examin ee

should do when he or she, as a law enforcement officer, is the

first person on the scene of an accident with an eviscerated

victim. The correct answer called for conservative treatment,

consistent with the level of medical training of the typical law

e nforcement officer and the preeminent objective doing no harm

to the victim. Respondent's more aggressive response is

unsupported by the relevant curriculum and clearly would have

further endangered the accident victim.

3. The second challenged question as ked the examinee how

he or she, as a law enforcement officer, should approach a

dangerous situation. The question specifically warned against

so - called "tombstone courage" that can cost an officer his or

her life. Consistent with his take - charge attitude , as

exemplified by his first response, Respondent selected an answer

that constituted his taking action, based on the fact that he is

supplied with a sidearm. The correct answer discouraged the

officer from risking his life to be a hero.

4. At the hearing , Petitioner did not contest that his

answer was incorrect to the second challenged question. He

testified that he actually provided the correct answer to the

question. However, examination of the answer sheet proved

otherwise.

5. The third challenged que stion asked the examinee to

identify the penalty for an officer tampering with the evidence

at a crime scene. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the

correct answer is revocation, not the lesser penalty that

Petitioner selected.

6. The fourth challenged qu estion asked the examinee to

identify the "first" thing he or she would have to have done to

ensure that a weapon found in the prisoner section of a police

car, immediately after the prisoner had been transported, would

be admissible into evidence. Petiti oner insisted that the first

thing would be to search the compartment immediately after the

prisoner was removed from the car, but the correct answer

focused on what had to take place earlier -- a search of the

compartment prior to the prisoner's occupying t he compartment.

7. The fifth challenged question asked the examinee to

identify a statement in the active voice. All but one of the

choices were in the passive voice, and Respondent selected one

of these statements.

8. Respondent correctly graded each of th e challenged

questions, and Petitioner failed to pass the law enforcement

officer certification examination.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Fla. Stat. (2005 ).

10. When challenging an examination, Petitioner has the

burden of proving that the scoring of his test was arbitrary or

capricious. Espinoza v. Department of Business and Professional

Regulation , 759 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

11. Section 943.1397(1), Fl orida Statutes (2005),

authorizes Respondent to administer an officer certification

examination as a prerequisite for certification of a law

enforcement officer.

12. Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B - 27.005(5)(a)5

provides that the penalty for an officer ta mpering with the

evidence is revocation.

13. In no respect was the scoring of Petitioner's five

challenged questions arbitrary or capricious.

RECOMMENDATION

It is

RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and

Training Commission enter a final order di smissing Petitioner's

challenge to the law enforcement officer certification

examination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2006, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

________________________ ___________

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalach ee 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 20th day of June, 2006.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael Crews, Program Director

Division of Criminal Justice

Professionalism Ser vices

Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Michael Ramage, General Counsel

Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Grace A. Jaye, Esquire

Department of Law Enforcement

Post Office Box 1489

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1489

Commodore Bradford

13628 Folkstone Court

Wellington, Florida 33414

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recom mended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.