12-001186 Pinellas County Sheriff&Apos;S Office vs. Dolores Taylor Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, September 10, 2012.

Summary: Respondent failed to conduct required inmate checks and falsified official records relating thereto. Sheriff's recommendation of 30-day suspension without pay is justified.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF ' S )

OFFICE , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 12 - 1186

)

DOLORES TAYLOR , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was held

by video teleconference between St. Petersburg and Tallahassee,

Florida, on July 18, 2012, before the Division of Administrative

Hearings by its designated Administrative Law Judge Linzie F.

Bogan.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

10750 Ulmerton Road

Largo, Florida 33778

For Respondent: Dolores Taylor

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether cause exists to suspend Respondent for 60 days

without pay.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about March 13, 2012, Petitioner, Pinellas County

Sheriff ' s Office (Petitioner or PCSO ), issued written

notification to Respondent, Dolores Taylor (Res pondent) ,

informing her that the PCSO intended to suspend her for 60 days

without pay for allegedly falsifying official records and for

failing to conduct required 30 - minute checks of inmates under her

supervision. On or about March 14, 2012, Respondent f iled her

" Notice of Appeal " and " Request for Civil Service Board Review. "

In accordance with the Pinellas County Sheriff ' s Civil Service

Board Rules of Procedure, the Civil Service Board, on or about

March 29, 2012, forwarded this matter to the Division o f

Administrative Hearings for review and entry of a Recommended

Order.

The final hearing was noticed for video teleconference on

June 8, 2012. Following the granting of a joint motion for

continuance, the instant matter was noticed for video

teleconfer ence on July 18, 2012.

At the hearing on July 18, 2012, Lieutenant Darrell Spiva

testified on behalf of Petitioner. Respondent testified on her

own behalf. Petitioner ' s Composite Exhibit 1 was admitted into

evidence. Respondent did not offer any exhi bits into evidence.

A T ranscript of the proceedings was filed on August 20,

2012. Only Petitioner submitted a Proposed Recommended Order.

The Proposed Recommended Order was considered in the preparation

of this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

The parties stipulated to the facts set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 47 below 1/ :

1. Bob Gualtieri is the duly - appointed s heriff of Pinellas

County, Florida.

2. Sheriff Gualtieri is in command of the operations of the

PCSO and is responsible for providing law enforcement and

corrections services within Pinellas County, Florida.

3. Sheriff Gualtieri is authorized to impose discipline in

accordance with the Civil Service Act, upon PCSO

members / employees who are found to have violated rules or

regulations o f the PCSO.

4. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was

employed by the PCSO as a Deputy Sheriff . As a Deputy Sheriff ,

Respondent was charged with the responsibility of complying with

all applicable state laws and PCSO rules, regulations, and

standard operating procedures.

5 . Respondent is familiar with the General Orders and

standard operating procedures with respect to the PCSO generally,

and in detention and corrections specifically.

6 . Respondent has been employed by the PCSO for

appro ximately 24 years.

7 . Respondent has been employed as a deputy with the

Detention and Corrections Bureau approximately nine years.

8 . [L t. ] Darrell Spiva is assigned to the Administrative

Investigations Division of the PCSO.

9. [Lt.] Spiva investigat ed concerns raised by Respondent ' s

supervisors arising from a Christmas party that Respondent had

for inmates who were under her supervision at the jail.

1 0 . In the Correction and Detention Bureau of the PCSO,

Respondent ' s primary function is to ensure th e care, custody and

control of inmates.

1 1 . Respondent ' s specific responsibility is to supervise

the inmates in the area of the jail where Respondent is assigned

during a particular shift.

1 2 . As part of Respondent ' s job duties in her assignment as

a dep uty, Respondent is required to conduct well - being checks

every 30 minutes, at a minimum, on each inmate in Respondent ' s

assigned area.

1 3 . Respondent is required to document the completion of

the well - being checks.

1 4 . Completion of the well - being chec ks is required to be

documented in the official records of the PCSO using the jail ' s

inmate management system.

1 5 . The inmate management software is commonly referred to

as " JIMS. "

1 6 . Respondent is familiar with a memorandum issued on

April 11, 2011 (Me morandum), by Sheriff ' s Gualtieri ' s

predecessor, Sheriff Coats, directed to all detention and

corrections personnel regarding proper care, custody, and control

of inmates.

1 7 . The subject line of the Memorandum reads, " automatic 30

day suspension without pay. "

1 8 . The Memorandum was understood by Respondent to

emphasize that in order to carry out the PCSO ' s legal and ethical

responsibilities, it is imperative that deputies check on

inmates.

19 . Deputies are to check on inmates in accordance with

accredit ation standards and requirements of the General Orders of

the Sheriff.

2 0 . The Memorandum explained that there had been a pattern

of violations by deputies not completing the required checks.

2 1 . The Memorandum indicated that deputies had not been

comple ting the required well - being checks and then falsifying

records to reflect they had completed the checks.

2 2 . According to the Memorandum, a new minimum penalty of

30 - days unpaid suspension would be imposed for future violations.

2 3 . According to the Mem orandum, the new minimum penalty

was to be effective on April 11, 2011.

2 4 . On December 2, 2011, Respondent was assigned to

supervise an area within the jail ' s central division designated

" Pod 4C4. "

2 5 . Pod 4C4 contained 16 cells on two levels around a

c ommon area on the lower level.

2 6 . During Respondent ' s shift, Pod 4C4 contained somewhere

between 48 to 60 female inmates.

2 7 . The pod is designed to be managed by the direct

supervision of a single deputy.

2 8 . The deputy is stationed at a work area wit hin the pod.

29 . The work area is located in the front of the pod on the

lower level.

3 0 . A person standing on the lower level of the pod cannot

see into all the cells on the upper and lower level without

moving up to the upper level and walking througho ut the pod.

3 1 . There are certain recessed areas -- vestibules,

bathrooms, etc. -- that are not entirely visible unless a deputy

walks around the pod. It would not be a complete well - being

check if Respondent did not go to the upper level of the pod.

3 2 . It takes somewhere under five minutes for a deputy, if

not interrupted, to make the walk that constitutes a well - being

check.

3 3 . On Respondent ' s overnight shift, which would have been

from 6:00 p.m. on December 22, 2011, to 6:00 a.m. on December 23,

2011, Respondent made computer entries to indicate that she had

performed well - being checks at certain times.

3 4 . JIMS records indicate that Respondent made well - being

checks on the days in question at 1837 hours, 2054 hours, 2123,

2151, 2225, 2246, 0024, 0049, 0118, 0147 and 0218 hours.

3 5 . Pursuant to the Sheriff ' s General Orders the

Administrative Review Board (ARB) met, reviewed the disciplinary

file, questioned the Respondent, gave the Respondent an

opportunity to make a statement and subsequently determin ed that

based on the preponderance of the evidence, Respondent had

violated the Sheriff ' s rules.

3 6 . General Order 10 - 2 covers disciplines and ranks certain

offenses.

3 7 . General Order 10 - 2 ranks offenses from Level 1 to

Level 5.

38 . Level 1 offenses ar e the least severe, and Level 5

offenses are the most severe.

39 . The General Orders set forth a procedure for assigning

points for each sustained violation.

4 0 . According to the number of points, there is a

corresponding table that indicates the range o f punishment.

4 1 . The ranking of certain offenses, the procedure for

assigning points for each sustained violation and the range of

punishment are all set by the General Orders.

4 2 . The point total for the two sustained violations found

by the ARB in Res pondent ' s case is 60.

4 3 . The discipline range for a violation resulting in

60 disciplinary points is from a minimum of a seven - day

suspension up to, and including, termination.

4 4 . Sheriff Gualtieri imposed a suspension of 30 days, or

240 hours, without pay against Respondent.

4 5 . The imposed suspension of 30 days, or 240 hours,

without pay is the penalty provided for as a minimum in the

Memorandum.

4 6 . Respondent did not make any correcting entries to

document that well - being checks she intended to co mplete were

never made.

47 . If Respondent made entries in the Sheriff ' s official

records that well - being checks were performed and the well - being

checks were not made, these recorded entries are false.

48 . Although the JIMS system indicated that Responde nt made

well - being checks at the times set forth in paragraph 3 4 above,

video surveillance confirmed that Respondent did not actually

make several of the well - being checks as indicated. Respondent

admits that she logged each of the 11 entries into JIMS an d that

she failed to conduct well - being checks for the times entered at

2123, 2225, 0049, 0118, 0218 and 0244 hours.

49 . According to Respondent, the established practice in

Pod 4C4 is to note in JIMS that a particular well - being check was

done prior to actually conducting the check. Following this

practice, Respondent should have conducted the well - being checks

within a reasonable time after entering the times into JIMS; but

she did not. Because Respondent failed to conduct the well - being

checks as re quired, this failure resulted in the JIMS entries

being false.

5 0 . Respondent asserts that she was distracted during the

times in question because she was thinking about Christmas and

her mom ' s 95th birthday. Respondent assertion of being

distracted is n ot credible. If Respondent was able to re press

her distracting thoughts long enough to make six entries in JIMS

attesting to well - being checks that she intended to do, then she

should have also been able to curb those same distracting

thoughts long enough to actually conduct the required well - being

checks. Respondent admits that there was no emergency or

disturbance among the inmates that physically impeded here

ability to complete the required checks , and in the absence of

such circumstances , Respondent should have completed each of the

checks. Respondent intentionally failed to conduct the well -

being checks at issue , and she knowingly caused false entries to

be made in the JIMS tracking system.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5 1 . The Division of Administrative Hear ings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this

proceeding. § 120. 65(7) , Fla. Stat. (2011).

5 2 . " The burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the

party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an

administrative tribunal. " Balino v. Dep ' t of HRS , 348 So. 2d

349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Petitioner is asserting that

Respondent violated PCSO General Order 3 - 3.1, Rule s and

Regulation s 5.4 and 5.14(c) and , therefore , Petitioner, as the

party asserting the affirmative, carries the burd en of proving by

a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the

alleged violations.

5 3 . A preponderance of the evidence is defined as " the

greater weight of the evidence " or evidence that " more likely

than not " tends to prove a certain pro position. Gross v. Lyons ,

763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000).

5 4 . Chapter 89 - 404, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter

90 - 395, section 5, Laws of Florida, authorizes the PCSO to take

certain disciplinary action against classified employees.

Chapter 8 9 - 404 also authorizes the PCSO to adopt rules and

regulations as are necessary to carry out the sheriff ' s

functions. Pursuant to this authority, the PCSO has adopted

policies, rules, and regulations which establish a standard of

conduct which must be foll owed by employees of the sheriff ' s

office.

5 5 . General Order 3 - 3.1, of which Rule and Regulation 5.4

is a part, generally provides that employees, when carrying out

their duties and responsibilities, are to adhere to the rules and

regulations governing th eir employment.

5 6 . General Order 3 - 3.1 also includes Rule and Regulation

5.14(c), which addresses conduct unbecoming members of the PCSO .

This rule prohibits employees from knowingly making a false entry

or causing a false entry to be made in any offici al record of the

agency.

57 . Petitioner has met its burden of proving that

Respondent intentionally failed to conduct all of her assigned

well - being checks on the day in question and that she knowingly

caused false entries to be made in the JIMS database.

58 . On April 11, 2011, Respondent and all other detention

and corrections personnel of the PCSO were advised that

" effective immediately anyone found to have violated policy by

intentionally not performing required inmate checks and

falsifying a documen t to reflect [that] the checks were actually

completed will receive an automatic 30 days suspension without

pay , and may be terminated. (Emphasis in original).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMEN DED that Petitioner, Pinellas County Sheriff ' s

Office, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Dolores

Taylor, violated General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule s and Regulation s 5.4

and 5.14(c), and suspending Respondent for a period of 3 0 days

(240 hours) without p ay.

DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September , 2012 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LINZIE F. BOGAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallah assee, 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 10th day of September , 2012 .

ENDNOTE

1/ The stipulated facts offered by the parties are set - f orth in

numbered paragraphs 1 through 52 of the Joint Pre - Hearing

Stipulation (Stipulation). Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 38, and 48 of the

Stipulation are duplicative of other paragraphs contained therein

and have , therefore , been omitted from this Recommended Or der.

The remaining stipulated facts appear verbatim in this

Recommended Order.

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carol Sanzeri, Esquire

Pinellas County Attorney's Office

315 Court Street

Clearwater, Florida 33756

Dolores Taylor

Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

10750 Ulmerton Road

Largo, Florida 33778

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS