15-005054 Pinellas County Sheriff&Apos;S Office vs. Cynthia Graham Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 19, 2017.

Summary: The Sheriff's Office proved the Sheriff had "cause" to dismiss Respondent based on her violation of its rules and regulations. The Sheriff's Office further proved the discipline imposed was consistent with prior actions. The dismissal should be sustained.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S

OFFICE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 5054

CYNTHIA GRAHAM,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this matt er was conducted before

J. Bruce Culpepper, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, pursuant to sections 120.65(6), 120.569,

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2016) , 1/ on January 20, 2017, by

video tele conf erence with sites in T allahassee and St. Petersburg

and on February 3, 2017, in St. Petersburg, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

10750 Ulmerton Road

Largo, Flori da 33778

For Respondent: Jan Thomas Govan, Esquire

Govan Law Group , P.A.

542 Bay Avenue

Clearwater, Florida 33756

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this matter is whether the Pinellas County

Sherif fÓs Office properly dismissed Respondent from her

employment as a deputy sheriff.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 14, 2015, Petitioner, Pinellas County SheriffÓs

Office (the ÐSheriffÓs OfficeÑ) , determined that Respondent,

Cynthia Graham, engaged in prohib ited conduct in violation of the

Civil Service Act and SheriffÓs Office General Order 3 - 1.

Specifically, the SheriffÓs Office found that Respondent violated

General O rder 3 - 1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.4, Duties and

Responsibilities ; and Rule and Regulation (ÐRuleÑ) 5.6,

Truthfulness. On that same day, the SheriffÓs Office notified

Respondent that , based on its findings, it was terminating her

employment a s a deputy sheriff.

On August 18, 2015, Respondent timely appealed her

termination to the SheriffÓs Off ice. On September 14, 2015, the

Pinellas County SheriffÓs Civil Service Board referred the matter

to the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ) to hear

RespondentÓs appeal pursuant to chapter 120 .

The final hearing was initially set for November 10, 2015.

On October 14, 2015, the final hearing was rescheduled to

Novem ber 13, 2015, due to PetitionerÓ s conflict. On November 2,

2015, Respondent filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the

Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, seeking to

prevent the Civil Service Board from acting outside its

jurisdiction in hearing this matter. Respondent alleged that the

SheriffÓs Office had exceeded the required time period in which

to hear RespondentÓs appeal. The DOAH proceeding was stayed

during the pendency of RespondentÓs writ of prohibition from

November 9, 2015 , through August 8, 2016. After review by both

the Appellate Division of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as well as

the Second District Court of Appeal, on July 18, 2016,

RespondentÓs writ of prohibition was ultimately denied. 2/

After the appellate proceedings resolved the issues raised

in RespondentÓs writ of prohibition, the DOAH final hearing was

rescheduled for January 20, 2017. 3/ The final hearing could not

be completed on that date. The final hearing was continued to

February 3, 2017, when it was completed.

During the final hearing, the SheriffÓs Office presented the

testimony of Sheriff Bob Gualtieri (Sheriff for Pinellas County),

Sergeant Amy White, Corporal Gilberto Perez 4/ , Deput y Michelle

Gammon, and Deputy Daunika Burge. The SheriffÓs Office offered

Exhibits 1 through 17, 20, 22, and 23 , which were admitted in

evidence. Respondent testified on her own behalf. Respondent

offered Exhibits 10A and 10B , which were admitted in evi dence.

A one - volume Transcript of the final hearing held on

January 20, 2017, was filed with DOAH on February 8, 2017. A

second one - volume Transcript from the continuation of the final

hearing held on February 3, 2017 , was filed with DOAH on April 3,

201 7.

At the close of the final hearing on February 3 , 2017, the

parties were advised of a ten - day timeframe following receipt of

the hearing transcript at DOAH to file post - hearing submittals.

By agreement of the parties, the deadline to file proposed

recom mended orders was extended to April 13, 2017. By agreeing

to a deadline more than ten days after the filing of the hearing

transcript, the parties waived the 30 - day time period for filing

the recommended o rder. 5/ On April 12, 2017, following

RespondentÓs Motion for Extension of Time to File Post Hearing

Submittal, the deadline for filing post - hearing submittals was

further extended until April 27, 2017. Both parties filed

p roposed recommended o rders which were duly considered in

preparing this Recommende d Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to this matter, Respondent was

employed by the SheriffÓs Office as a deputy sheriff. In 2015,

Respondent was assigned to the Pinellas County Department of

Detention and Corrections. She worked at the P inellas County

Jail (the ÐJailÑ).

2. At the time of her dismissal, Respondent had worked for

the SheriffÓs Office for approximately 16 years.

3. Bob Gualtieri is the duly - appointed Sheriff of Pinellas

County, Florida, and is in command of SheriffÓs Offic e

operations.

4. As part of his responsibilities, Sheriff Gualtieri is

authorized to impose discipline upon SheriffÓs Office employees

and members who are found to have violated SheriffÓs Office rules

and regulations. Sheriff GualtieriÓs authority is set forth in

chapter 89 - 404, as amended by chapter 90 - 395, Laws of Florida,

entitled the Pinellas County SheriffÓs Civil Service System (the

ÐCivil Service ActÑ).

5. As a deputy sheriff, Respondent was charged with the

responsibility of complying with all Sh eriffÓs Office rules,

regulations, general orders, and standard operating procedures.

6. RespondentÓs termination is based on her alleged

misconduct during and after an incident o n April 10, 2015, when

Deputy Daunika Burge mistakenly carried her service r evolver into

the Jail in violation of SheriffÓs Office policies. The

SheriffÓs Office determined that Respondent was aware of the

presence of Deputy BurgeÓs sidearm in the Jail, but did not take

prompt and effective action to remove or report it. Thereaf ter,

the SheriffÓs Office believes that Respondent lied to SheriffÓs

Office investigators by denying any knowledge of the pistolÓs

presence in the Jail. Sheriff Gualtieri terminated Respondent on

August 14, 2015.

7. On April 10, 2015, Deputy Burge was as signed to the

Judicial Operations Bureau, also known as the Ð court squad. Ñ

Around 6:00 that morning, she was escorting several inmates

through the Jail. As she was standing on F - wing, one of the

inmates pointed to Deputy BurgeÓs side and remarked that sh e was

still wearing her sidearm.

8. The Jail is a maximum security facility. As such, all

firearms, even for sheriff deputies, are prohibited from the

premises. As Sheriff Gualtieri expressed, Ðthe Jail is a

comp letely sterile environment. ItÓ s probabl y one of the few

sacrosanct things. Because nobody has got weapons . . . no one

is armed in that facility. Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri further described,

Ð I canÓ t think of anything that is more serious, that has the

potential to wreak havoc and to get people kill ed, than to

introduce a firearm into a jail setting, especially a maximum

secu rity jail setting . . . peopleÓ s lives, literally, are at

risk by having that gun in there. Ñ

9. Lockers placed just outside the Jail entrance are

designated as the storage locat ion for all firearms. Sheriff

officers are instructed to store all weapons in the lockers prior

to entering the Jail.

10. Unfortunately, Deputy Burge forgot to secure her

sidearm before she entered the Jail. After realizing her

mistake, Deputy Burge dec ided to store her weapon inside the Jail

in the 1F control room , which was the closest secure l ocation

nearby.

11. The 1F control room is the security post located inside

the Jail between the ÐHotelÑ (the inmate living area) and the

exterior hallways that l ead to court rooms and other public areas.

The control room is approximately twelve feet long and eight feet

wide. Large glass windows line the upper half of the control

room walls from approximately fou r feet high up to the ceiling.

12. The 1F control room is staffed by at least one deputy

at all times. To access the control room from the exterior

hallways, the deputy inside the control room must remotely unlock

(then relock) two control gates. Like the rest of the Jail, the

1F control room is a secu re area in which weapons and ammunition

are prohibited.

13. Deputy Burge entered the 1F control room with her

firearm at approximately 6:22 a.m. Two deputies, Corporal

Gilberto Perez and Deputy Michelle Gammon, were present in the

control room. After sh e entered, Deputy Burge testified that she

announced to Corporal Perez and Deputy Gammon that, ÐI have

something I shouldnÓt have.Ñ Deputy Burge then quickly removed

her gun belt and pistol and moved to a small cabinet or cupboard

that is located under a counter in the corner of the room.

There, she placed her firearm and two magazines of ammunition

into the cabinet. Deputy Burge stated that she laid her pistol

and ammunition on the bottom of the cabinet and covered them with

clothing that she found insi de the cabinet. The cabinet was not

secured and could not be locked. Thereafter, she qu ickly exited

the control room.

14. On that same morning, Respondent was assigned to

work the day shift in the 1F control room. Her shift began at

7:00 a.m. Respond ent reported to the control room just before

6:50 a.m. (approximately 30 minutes after Deputy Burge placed her

pistol in the cabinet). In the control room, Respondent relieved

Corporal Perez who wa s her night shift counterpart.

15. The SheriffÓs Office a lleges that, just before he

departed from his shift, Corporal Perez informed Respondent that

another deputy left a weapon in the control room cabinet.

Respondent disputes this allegation.

16. Corporal Perez was the night - shift commander of the

1F contro l room. Corporal Perez testified that near the end of

his shift, a deputy (later identified as Deputy Burge) enter the

control room. She walked passed him, and he heard her say that

she had forgotten to remove her sidearm prior to entering the

Jail. He then saw her kneel down in front of the cabinet in the

corner of the room. He observed her place a pistol in the

cabinet. Corporal Perez relayed that he heard the deputy express

that she was going to leave her weapon in the control room, and

she would be back to pick it up later. After the deputy left the

control room, Corporal Perez opened the cabinet door and looked

inside. He saw a pistol and two clips of ammunition lying on the

bottom of the cabinet.

17. Corporal Perez stated that he directly told Respondent

about Deputy BurgeÓs weapon in the cabinet. When Respondent

reported for her shift at 6:50 a.m., Corporal Perez attested that

before he left the control room, he advised Respondent that a

court squad deputy left her firearm in the cabinet. Cor poral

Perez then motioned for Respondent to walk with him to the

cabinet. He opened the cabinet door in front of Respondent, and

pointed to the pistol laying inside. Corporal Perez relayed that

Respondent, who was standing right next to him, nodded her h ead.

Respondent then bent down and saw the object to which he was

pointing. He also showed her the ammunition. Corporal Perez had

no doubt t hat Respondent saw the pistol.

18. Corporal Perez then told Respondent that the deputy was

returning to pick up the weapon at the end of her shift.

Corporal Perez did not know who the deputy was. Therefore, he

described her to Respondent. According to Corporal Perez,

Respondent correctly guessed that the officer was Deputy Burge.

Corporal Perez left the 1F contr ol room approximately six minutes

after Respondent entered.

19. At the final hearing, the SheriffÓs Office introduced a

security video from a fixed position surveillance camera mounted

outside the 1F control room. The video camera was located in a

long c orridor that connected the different wings of the Jail.

The camera looked across the corridor into the interior of the

control room. Because the control room walls were lined with

windows, most of the activity and persons moving about inside

were reasona bly visible and identifiable. (The video recording

did not capture audio sounds or conversations.)

20. The cabinet in which Deputy Burge stored her firearm,

however, was located under a counter in one of the corners of the

control room. The cabinet was not visible by the camera.

Furthermore, the corner post of the control room wall blocked

from view any person opening the cabinet door or looking inside.

21. At approximately 6:50 a.m., the video recording of the

1F control room shows Corporal Perez ackn owledging RespondentÓs

arrival. Shortly thereafter, Corporal Perez and Respondent move

together to the corner of the room where the cabinet is located.

Both individuals disappear from the video, effectively obscured

by the corner post. Corporal Perez te stified that during this

brief period, he opened the cabinet door, pointed to the weapon,

and Respondent bent over and looked at the pistol.

22. The video recording corroborates Corporal PerezÓs

testimony that he and Respondent communicated after she ente red

the control room. The video also establishes that Corporal Perez

and Respondent walked together to the corner of the room where

the cabinet is located. However, the video does not show,

outside a brief quiver of someoneÓs clothing, Corporal Perez

ope ning the cabinet door or directing RespondentÓs attention to

Deputy BurgeÓs sidearm. Neither does the video confirm that

Respond ent peered inside the cabinet.

23. Deputy Gammon was also present in the 1F control room

when Deputy Burge entered on the morn ing of April 10, 2015.

Deputy Gammon denied having any knowledge at the time that Deputy

Burge was carrying a weapon. Neither did she observe Deputy

Burge place her sidearm in the cabinet. However, Deputy Gammon

did hear Deputy Burge utter something to the effect of ÐI hav e

something I shouldnÓt have.Ñ

24. Deputy Gammon was also present in the 1F control room

when Respondent arrive d to begin her work shift. Shortly after

Respondent entered the control room, Deputy Gammon saw Respondent

and Corporal Per ez move together to the corner of the room where

the cabinet was located. Deputy Gammon, however, did not hear

RespondentÓs conversation with Corporal Perez. Neither did she

speak with Respondent about Deputy BurgeÓs weapon.

25. According to the video r ecording, Deputy Burge returned

to the 1F control room to retrieve her pistol and ammunition

at 7:52 a.m. Respondent was not present when she entered the

room. In fact, the video showed that three minutes earlier

(at 7:49 a.m.), Respondent walked out o f and away from the

control room. (Respondent explained that she left the control

room to get some coffee.)

26. In the control room, Deputy Burge pulled her pistol out

of the cabinet and placed it, along with the ammunition clips, in

a black bag. She th en exited the control room intending to leave

the Jail.

27. As she left the 1F control room, Deputy Burge testified

that she bumped into Respondent and a deputy recruit standing

just outside the control room door. Deputy Burge relayed that

Respondent sai d to her, ÐI hope youÓ re here to get what you left

earlier. Ñ Deputy Burge replied to Respondent that she was and

stated, ÐThat Ó s why I have my black bag.Ñ Respondent then

inqui red, ÐDid you get everything?Ñ

28. Deputy Burge conveyed that neither she nor Respondent

used the word Ðfirearm,Ñ Ðgun,Ñ or Ðweapon.Ñ However, she

interpreted RespondentÓs statements as questions specifically

concerning her pistol. Deputy Burge testified that, based on

this exchange, she had no doubt that Respondent knew that her g un

was in the 1F control room.

29. As with the cabinet, the control room doorway is

obscured from the video cameraÓs vantage point. Any persons

standing outside the control room are hidden from view. Deputy

Burge testified that, despite the fact that the video does not

show her meeting Respondent, she did, in fact, speak with her

outside the control room door.

30. However, the video recording completely discredits and

subverts Deputy BurgeÓs story. True to her testimony, at

7:52 a.m., the video show s Deputy Burge walking with a black bag

down a corridor and into the control room. Once there, she moves

across the room to the corner where the cabinet is located

(disappearing from view). Soon thereafter, she walks back across

the control room, through the doorway (again disappearing from

view), and reemerges back in the corridor wa l ki ng away from the

control room.

31. However, moments later, just after Deputy Burge

disappears from view up the corridor, the video recording shows

Respondent appear in th e corridor, walking toward the 1F control

room from the opposite direction. Respondent turns a corner,

disappears from view, then walks through the control room door

carrying a cup of coffee. The video provides compelling evidence

that Deputy Burge did n ot encounter Respondent outside the

control room door (much less carry on a conversation about the

weapon). The video establishes that Deputy Burge did not see

Respondent at any time while she was retrieving her pistol.

32. When Deputy Burge was asked at the final hearing

whether, based on the video record, she did, in fact, confront

Respondent outside the control room doorway and discuss her

sidearm, Deputy Burge testified that Ðthe video shows that we

didnÓt . . . I did not have a con versation with [Res pondent].Ñ

33. Deputy Burge Ó s mistake of carrying her sidearm into the

Jail led to an internal administrative investigation , which

commenced on May 1, 2015. Deputy Burge, Corporal Perez, and

Deputy Gammon were all charged with violating SheriffÓs Office

General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule 5.4, pertaining t o duties and

responsibilities.

34. The investigation was conducted by the SheriffÓs

OfficeÓs Administrative Investigations Division, Professional

Standards Bureau (ÐAIDÑ). Sergeant Amy White was assigned to

lead the investigation. One of Sergeant WhiteÓs goals was to

determine who knew about the presence of Deputy BurgeÓs sidearm

in the control room. As Sheriff Gualtieri described, anybody who

had knowledge that Ða loaded firearm is within that environment,

sho uld immediately Ï must immediately take action to determine if

it has occurred. And if it has, to take swift remedial action.Ñ

Therefore, Sergeant White initiated her investigation to

determine whether Corporal Perez and Deputy Gammon failed to take

acti on or notify anyone of the situation.

35. On May 22, 2015, AID questioned Respondent as a witness

to the incident. T hree AID sergeants met with Respondent to

determine what, if anything, she knew about the presence of

Deputy BurgeÓs weapon in the 1F cont rol room on April 10, 2015.

As the questioning began, Respondent remarked, Ð Are you talking

about the gun, or do you mean the gun[?]Ñ Prior to RespondentÓs

statement, Sergeant White had not made any comments to Respondent

about a gun, firearm, or weapon being the subject of the

investigation. Consequently, Sergeant White interpreted

RespondentÓs unsolicited comment to mean that Respondent had

learned that Deputy Burge had left her pistol in the control room

at the time it happened (April 10, 2015) and fr om no other source

after April 10, 2015.

36. One of the AID investigators then directly asked

Respondent if she knew that a gun had been brought into the

1F control room. At the final hearing, Sergeant White described

RespondentÓs response as, Ðshe, you know, then kind of tilted her

head, and got this kind of, for lack of a better term, smile or

smirk on her fac e. And said may Ï stated maybe . . . . Ñ This

reaction confirmed in Sergeant White's mind that Respondent knew

about the presence of Deputy Burge Ós sidearm in the c ontrol room

on April 10, 2015.

37. That same day (May 22, 2015), the SheriffÓs Office

changed RespondentÓs status to a subject of the investigation.

The complaint of misconduct filed against Respondent alleged that

on April 10, 2015, s he violated General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule 5.4,

pertaining to duties and responsibilities. (The same charge the

SheriffÓs Office filed against Deputy Burge, Corpor al Perez, and

Deputy Gammon.)

38. On June 16, 2015, Respondent made a sworn statement to

AID. I n her statement, Respondent denied any knowledge of the

presence of Deputy BurgeÓs sidearm in the 1F control room on

April 10, 2015. Respondent specifically expressed that Corporal

Perez did not tell her that Deputy Burge brought her gun into the

control room. Respondent explicitly stated that ÐNobody

specifically told me that there was a weapon in that control

room,Ñ and that she was Ðtotally unaware of a weapon.Ñ

39. The SheriffÓs Office believed that RespondentÓs sworn

statement directly contradicted the statement she made during her

initial interview on May 22, 2015, in which she said the word

ÐgunÑ and then tilted her head and kind of smirked. Therefore,

the SheriffÓs Office concluded that RespondentÓs sworn statement

on June 16, 2015, was a lie. C onsequently, on June 24, 2015, the

SheriffÓs Office supplemented RespondentÓs initial complaint of

misconduct with another complaint. This second complaint added

the allegation that on, but not limited to, June 16, 2015,

Respondent violated General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule 5 .6, pertaining to

truthfulness.

40. In the course of its investigation, AID compiled an

investigation record. This record was provided to the SheriffÓs

OfficeÓs Ad ministrative Review Board (the Ð ARB Ñ ) which considered

the complaints of misco nduct against Respondent. The ARB was a

five - person panel composed of members of Respondent's chain - of -

command.

41. The ARB was charged with reviewing the evidence and

resolving issues of disputed fact. Thereafter, the ARB would

make a recommendation to Sheriff Gualtieri regarding the

disposition of the matter, as well as any discipline that should

be imposed. Sheriff Gualtieri would then decide whether to

follow the ARB's recommendation, and what discipline, if any, the

member was to receive.

42. The ARB reviewed AIDÓs investigation record including

statements made by the witnesses. The ARB also heard live

testimony from Respondent, as well as the other deputies charged

with misconduct. Thereafter, the ARB substantiated both

complaints of misconduct against Respondent.

43. On August 14, 2015, Sheriff Gualtieri issued an Inter -

office Memorandum to Respondent. Sheriff Gualtieri relayed that

the ARB determined that Respondent committed the following

violations of General Order 3 - 1.1:

1. You violated P inellas County SheriffÓs

Office General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule and

Regulation 5.4 , Duties and Responsibilities:

Synopsis: You relieved the night shift

1F Control Room post and were advised that a

firearm had been left in a lockless cabinet,

in that control r oom, by another deputy. The

loaded and charged gun, accompanied by two

full magazines, was displayed to you and you

acknowledged its presence in the unsecured

cabinet. You took no action to rectify this

acute situation.

To compound this integrity compro mise of the

maximum security facility of the Pinellas

County jail, you were also acting in the

capacity of Field Training Officer. You and

your recruit were notified of the presence of

the gun and discussed it in the control room.

You misled your recruit with flippant and

impotent remarks. You had an obligation, not

only to restore security, but to teach your

trainee proper and effective security

measures.

You failed to fulfill these responsibilities.

2. You violated Pinellas County SheriffÓs

Office G eneral Order 3 - 1.1, Rule and

Regulation 5.6, Truthfulness:

Synopsis: You affirmed, to three

Administrative Investigation Division (AID)

Sergeants, that you were aware of the

presence of a gun in the 1F Control Room

while you were assigned to and accounta ble

for the security of that control room.

Consequently, you were identif ied as a

subject in this case.

During your subject interview, you provided

testimony which contradicted the statements

you originally made to the AID investigators.

When presented with this conflict, you denied

making the statements to the three

investigators.

Four (4) additional staff members, two of

whom were equally culpable for this incident,

consistently attested to your awareness that

a firearm was carelessly stored in the

co ntrol room. In the same interview, you,

again, denied being notified of the presence

of the weapon and made counter accusations

against some of the members.

In a second subject interview, this being

your third meeting with AID investigators,

you maintaine d your denial and repeatedly

swore that witness testimony was false and

made Ðno sense.Ñ To the contrary, however,

witnessÓ testimonies were logical and

independent yet consistent and they were

supported by recorded video of this incident.

At your Admini strative Review Board, you

were, again, presented with witness testimony

and video evidence which bore stark contrast

to your sworn statements. Your replies to

direct questions from the Board were evasive,

and insufficient to prove your candor in this

cas e.

44. In essence, Respondent was alleged to have been aware

that a weapon was brought into the 1F control room against

regulations, and she took no action to rectify the situation and

restore security. Thereafter, Respondent was not truthful in

that sh e lied to SheriffÓs Office investigators by denying that

she knew about the presence of the firearm in the control room.

45. Sheriff Gualtieri ÐsubstantiatedÑ the ARBÓs findings.

Sheriff Gualtieri explained at the final hearing that he reached

his conclu sion based on the Ðabundance of evidence that was

presented to me that indicated that she knew th e gun was there,

and denied it.Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri did not conduct an independent

investigation into the incident, or RespondentÓs involvement in

the same. S heriff Gualtieri did not read the investigation

documents themselves or witness statements. (He never takes that

step.) Sheriff Gualtieri did not speak to Respondent about wh at

happened on April 10, 2015.

46. Instead, Sheriff Gualtieri met with the memb ers of the

ARB and was briefed on the evidence and the ARBÓs

recommendation. 6/ Sheriff Gualtieri based his decision on Ðthe

volume of the evidenceÑ against Respondent, specifically:

a. During her May 22, 2015 , interview with AID , Sheriff

Gualtieri found it significant that Respondent Ðinitiated the

inquiry about the gun. [The AI D investigators] didn't say gun to

her. She said gun to them.Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri concluded that

Respondent knew about Deputy BurgeÓs mishandling of her pistol

and Ðonce it becam e evident to Respondent that she might have

some culpability for knowing about the firearm, she changed her

story and began denying any knowledge of it.Ñ

b. Sheriff Gualtieri found it significant that Ðall these

people . . . said that they knew that [Resp ondent] knew about the

gun . . . you have all of the totality of several people saying

that.Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri did not personally speak wi th any

witnesses involved in AID Ós investigation. Instead, he relied on

what he was told the witnesses admitted to the investigators. In

reaching his conclusion to terminate Respondent, Sheriff

Gualtieri specifically referenced statements given by Deputy

Burge and Corporal Perez who asserted that they expressly told

Respondent that Deputy Burge had left her sidearm in the

cabinet. 7/

c. Sheriff Gualtieri also referenced the video recording

which he believed corroborated Corporal PerezÓ s testi mony. He

commented that ÐthereÓ s a video of Perez with her at the cabinet

where the gun is stored.Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri did not v iew the

video. However, he described that he understood it showed

Respondent Ðbending over and looking to a storage area where the

gun is stored.Ñ

47. Thereafter, Sheriff Gualtieri took all of the evidence

gathered to that point including Ðthe numerous s tatements by

numerous deputies that they personally told her; they either

heard somebody tell her, et cetera. And, then the video, with

her looking in the cabinet where the gun was, that I concluded

that she did have knowledge.Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri also co mmented

that Respondent had ample opportunity to reconsider her denial of

knowledge of the weaponÓs presence and tell the truth. Instead,

Respondent continued to refuse Ðto do the right thing.Ñ

Consequently, on August 14, 2015, Sheriff Gualtieri sustaine d the

complaint against Respondent.

48. SheriffÓs Office General Order 10 - 2, Disciplinary

Procedures, establishes disciplinary guidelines for the SheriffÓs

Office. Violations of SheriffÓs Office standards of conduct are

categorized into five distinct lev els which range from Level 1 to

Level 5. Level 5 violations result in the most serious

discipline. Pursuant to General Order 3 - 1, violations of

Rule 5.4, Duties and Responsibilities, and Rule 5.6, Truthfu lness,

are Level 5 violations.

49. According to the General Order 10 - 2 point scale,

60 points were assigned for RespondentÓs two Level 5 violations.

On the disciplinary scale, t he discipline that the Sheriff may

impose for 60 points ranges from a minimum suspension of seven

days up to terminat ion from the SheriffÓs Office.

50. S heriff Gualtieri determined that the appropriate

discipline for RespondentÓs two rule violations was to terminate

her employment. On her progressive discipline worksheet, Sheriff

Gualtieri wrote that Respondent was terminated Ðbecause of

lying.Ñ Sheriff Gualtieri explained at the final hearing:

[T]he most serious part of the allegation,

which was the most concerning part of the

facts to me, was the lying . . . . I will

not tolerate, and have never tolerated a

deputy sheriff l ying an d not telling the

truth. ThereÓ s nothing that is more

important than our veracity and our

credibility, individually. And, everybody in

the agency knows, or should know . . . that

if a determination is made, based upo n the

facts, that you lied, you Ó re not going to

work at the Pinellas County SheriffÓ s Office.

51. Sheriff Gualtieri further explained:

ThereÓ s nothing more important than your

candor Ï than your character. And, it

really brings discredit on an individual

[and] the agency. . . . It really prevents

you from being an effective deputy sheriff.

Because you Ó re going to get called in Ï

everything you do, is going to get called

into question. . . . So, very simply . . .

the underlying conduct is in one bucket, and

would have been dealt wi th separately. Then,

you add the lying onto it. And, the lying is

what resulted in the termination.

52. Sheriff Gualtieri testified that he has terminated

every SheriffÓs Office deputy who has been found to violate the

policy requiring truthfulness. A s he succinctl y stated at the

final hearing, Ð Everybody that I have determin ed that has lied, I

fired them.Ñ

53. Sheriff Gualtieri also substantiated the ARBÓs findings

that Deputy Burge, Corporal Perez, and Deputy Gammon violated

General Order 3 - 1.1, Rul e 5.4, Duties and Responsibilities.

Sheriff Gualtieri explained that he would have expected these

deputies to take immediate, swift action to remove the gun from

the Jail.

54. Based on their violations, Sheriff Gualtieri suspended

Deputy Burge for 120 ho urs and reassigned her from the court

squad to the Jail. Corporal Perez was suspended for 40 hours and

demoted from corporal to deputy (which is the loss of a

supervisory rank). Deputy Gammon was suspended for 40 hours.

None were terminated. Sheriff Gu altieri expressed that while

these deputies made a mistake, none of them lied about the

situation. None were charged with violating General Order 3 - 1.1,

Rule 5.6, Truthfulness.

55. Respondent asserts that she was wrongfully terminated.

At the final hear ing, Respondent staunchly denied that she knew

of the presence of Deputy BurgeÓs firearm in the 1F control room

on the day in question. Respondent also disputed that she lied

in her sworn statement on June 16, 2015, when she denied any

knowledge that Depu ty Burge brought her pistol into the control

room.

56. Respondent further refuted having any conversation with

Deputy Burge outside the control room door on the morning of

April 10, 2015. (The surveillance video sup ports RespondentÓs

testimony.)

57. Res pondent admitted that she had a brief conversation

with Corporal Perez when she reported to the 1F control room to

start her shift. However, she denied that Corporal Perez

notified her that a weapon was in the cabinet. She further

denied that he pointed out the pistol to her, or that she bent

down to look into the cabinet to see the weapon.

58. At the final hearing, Respondent commented about her

statement during the May 22, 2015, interview during which she

uttered the word Ðgun.Ñ Respondent explained t hat her remark was

based on the Ð gossip Ñ and Ðrumor and innuendoÑ that she had heard

about the incident.

59. Respondent also challenges the fairness of Sheriff

GualtieriÓs decision to terminate her while the other three

deputies remain with the SheriffÓs Office. Deputy Burge actually

caused the trouble by wrongfully bring ing her sidearm into the

Jail. Yet, Sheriff Gualtier i allowed her to keep her job.

60. Respondent also pointed out that, because Corporal

Perez was aware of the weaponÓs presence in the control room

(prior to her arrival), he should have assumed primary

responsibility for reporting and removing it. Therefore, even if

Respondent did err in not timely communicating the pistolÓs

existence in the Jail, Corporal Perez was more negligent by n ot

immediately securing the weapon. Sheriff Gualtieri, however,

also al lowed him to keep his job.

61. Finally, Respondent testified re garding two other

deputies who she believed the SheriffÓs Office punished

inconsistently. Respondent represented that b oth Detention

Deputy Alexandra Zuloaga and Deputy Jeanette Pettiford violated

the SheriffÓs Office rules for truthfulness, but were not

terminated. 8/

62. However, the SheriffÓs Office presented evidence that

neither of these ÐcomparatorsÑ were punished fo r the same rule

violation as Respondent. Deputy Zuloaga was disciplined for

loyalty, not Ðtruthfulness.Ñ Similarly, a charge of

untruthfulness was not substantiated against Deputy Pettiford.

63. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented

at t he final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence provides

the SheriffÓs Office sufficient factual and legal ÐcauseÑ to

dismiss Respondent. Consequently, the SheriffÓs Office met its

burden of establishing sufficient grounds to terminate Respondent

from her position as a deputy sheriff.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

64. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction

over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to

section 120.65(6) and the Civil Service Act.

65. The Civil Service Act e mpowers the Sheriff of Pinellas

County to adopt rules and regulations necessary to carry out

Sheriff Ó s Office functions. The Civil Service Act further

authorizes the SheriffÓs Office to take disciplinary action

against members of the Classified Service, i ncluding detention

deputy sheriffs (such as Respondent).

66. Under section 6 of the Civil Service Act, Respondent, as

a member of the Classified Service, may be dismissed from service

only Ðfor cause.Ñ ÐCauseÑ for dismissal includes, but is not

limited t o, Ð violation of the provisions of law or the rules,

regulations, and operating procedures of the Office of the

Sheriff.Ñ

67. The Civil Service Act authorizes the Sheriff to create a

Civil Service Board to hear all appeals arising from personnel

actions w hich result in dismissal. The Civil Service Board acts

as the Ðagency headÑ and makes the final determination in this

matter. See Section 7 and 8, Civil Service Act ; and Rule 7, Civil

Service Board Rules of Procedure.

68. The Civil Service Board may con tract with DOAH to hear

the appeal of the personnel action. The appeal hearing will be

conducted pursuant to chapter 120, as well as the rules followed

by DOAH in accordance with Florida Statutes. See Sections 8 and

11, Civil Service Act ; and Rules 4 and 5, Civil Ser vice Board

Rules of Procedure.

69. The Civil Service Act, s ection 8(3), defines the scope

of review and issues to be decided in this matter. In hearing

appeals, the Civil Service Board (or DOAH) shall:

1) Determine whether the aggrieved mem ber

engaged in conduct prohibited by section 6 or

by a departmental rule promulgated by the

Sheriff;

2) Determine whether the action taken against

the aggrieved member is consistent with action

taken against other members; and

3) Make findings of fact and state a

conclusion as specified in subsection (6).

70. Under subsection (6) of the Civil Service Act, the Civil

Service Board shall either sustain, modify, or not sustain the

action being appealed. If the Civil Service Board does not

sustain the und erlying action ( e.g. , finding that no ÐcauseÑ

exists for dismissal), the Civil Service Board shall reinstate the

member of the Classified S ervice to the SheriffÓs Office.

71. Pursuant to the Civil Service Act, Sheriff Gualtieri

adopted General Order 3 - 1, Rules and Regulations, which

establishes a standard of conduct which must be followed by

members of the SheriffÓs Office. The SheriffÓs Office alleges

that Respondent violated General Order 3 - 1.1 , Rule 5.4 , and

Rule 5.6, which provide as follows:

Rule 5. 4, Duties and Responsibilities Ï The

primary responsibility of all SheriffÓs Office

personnel is to be aware of their assigned

duties and responsibilities. All personnel

are always subject to duty and are responsible

for taking prompt and effective action within

the scope of their duties and abilities

whenever required.

Rule 5.6, Truthfulness Ï Members are required

to be truthful at all times when acting in an

official capacity, whether under oath or not,

such as when offering testimony in legal

proceedin gs and administrative investigations.

This includes a prohibition against deliberate

or intentional omissions or misrepresentations

of material fact.

72. The SheriffÓs Office specifically alleges that,

1) Respondent failed to take prompt and effective a ction to secure

a firearm and ammunition that another deputy had left in a control

room under Respondent's command, and 2) Respondent was not

truthful during the internal inv estigation into that incident.

73. The burden of proof in this chapter 120 procee ding,

absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party

asserting the affirmative of the issue. DepÓt of Transp. v.

J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also DepÓt of

Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne Ster n &

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996)(ÐThe general rule is that a

party asserting the affirmative of an issue has the burden of

presenting evidence as to that issue.Ñ). Therefore, t he

SheriffÓs Office, as the party seeking to take disciplinary

action o n Respondent, carries the ultimate burden of persuasion

in this administrative matter .

74. The burden of proof in this proceeding is governed by

the preponderance of the evidence standard. See § 120.57(1)(j),

Fla. Stat. A preponderance of the evidence i s defined as Ð the

greater weight of the evidenceÑ or evidence that Ð more likely

than not Ñ tends to prove a certain proposition. Gross v. Lyons ,

763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000). See also S. Fla. Water

Mgmt. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC , 139 So. 3d 869, 872 n .1 (Fla. 2014 )

citing to BlackÓ s Law Dictionary 1301 (9th ed. 2009)( A

preponderance of the evidence is defined as Ð[t]he greater weight

of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater

number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence tha t has

the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that,

though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable

doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind

to one side of the issue rather than the other.Ñ ) .

75. Tur ning to the issues to be reviewed in this matter

under the Civil Service Act:

1) Determine whether the aggrieved member

engaged in conduct prohibited by section 6 or

by a departmental rule promulgated by the

Sheriff.

76. After careful consideration of t he competent

substantial evidence in the record, the undersigned finds that

the SheriffÓs Office demonstrated, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct prohibited by the

Civil Service Act, section 6, and General Order 3 - 1.

Sp ecifically, the SheriffÓs Office proved that Respondent

violated General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule 5.4, Duties and

Responsibilities, and Rule 5.6, Truthfulness.

77. The facts found in this matter proved the evidence

shows that Respondent was aware of the presenc e of a firearm in

the 1F control room on April 10, 2015. Respondent failed to take

prompt action to secure the firearm. Further, Respondent was not

truthful during the ensuing AID investigation when she denied to

investigators any knowledge of the weapon in the control room.

78. The ultimate finding of fact turns on the competing

testimony between Corporal Perez and Respondent. (The remaining

evidence as identified in the Finding s of Fact above, is not

sufficiently credible or persuasive to support the SheriffÓs

OfficeÓs allegations.) Based on the facts in the record, the

greater weight of the evidence supports Corporal PerezÓs testimony

that he informed Respondent, on the morning of April 10, 2015,

that Deputy Burge placed her sidearm in the cabinet in the 1F

control room. To summarize the key aspects of the evidence,

Corporal Perez was aware Deputy Burge brought her pistol into the

control room and deposited it in the cabinet. When Respondent

arrived for her duty shift, Corporal Perez asked her to ac company

him to the cabinet at which point he informed her that the weapon

was located inside.

79. Corporal PerezÓs testimony is supported by two factual

findings. First, Deputy Gammon was present in the 1F control room

at the time Corporal Perez asserts that he informed Respondent

about the weapon. Although Deputy Gammon denied knowing of the

firearmÓs presence, or that she overheard the conversation between

Corporal Perez and Respondent, she did see them walk together to

the cabinet. Thus, Deputy Gammo n corroborates Corporal PerezÓs

testimony that he communicated with Respondent about the weapon

and showed her where it was located.

80. Second, the video recording of the 1F control room also

tracked Corporal Perez and RespondentÓs movements through the

room. The video displayed Corporal Perez and Respondent moving

together to the corner of the control room where the cabinet was

located at the time Corporal Perez stated that he discussed the

firearm with Respondent.

81. At the final hearing, Corporal Pe rez testified

consistently and persuasively. 9/ Through his testimony, as

supported by the findings above, the SheriffÓs Office

demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent

learned about the presence of Deputy BurgeÓs sidearm in the

1 F co ntrol room on April 10, 2015.

82. Accordingly, the SheriffÓs Office met its burden of

proving that Respondent engaged in conduct prohibited by Civil

Service Act, section 6, and General Order 3 - 1. Specifically, the

evidence establishes that Respondent violated General Order 3 - 1.1,

Rule 5.4, Duties and Responsibilities, and Rule 5.6, Truthfulness.

Therefore, the Sheriff is authorized to discipline Respondent for

ÐcauseÑ under the Civil Service Act.

2) Determine whether the action taken against

the agg rieved member is consistent with act ion

taken against other members.

83. The SheriffÓs Office further demonstrated that the

disciplinary action against Respondent (dismissal) is consistent

with discipline the Sheriff has taken against other members who

c ommitted the same prohibited conduct. Sheriff Gualtieri

exercised his authority, within the disciplinary range authorized

by General Order 10 - 2, to terminate RespondentÓs employment.

Sheriff Gualtieri emphatically testified that he has fired every

member of the SheriffÓs Office who he has determined violated the

policy on truthfulness. No evidence was presented to the

contrary.

84. Respondent did not present persuasive evidence that the

SheriffÓs Office has disciplined other members differently based

on a violation of General Order 3 - 1, Rule 5 - 6, Truthfulness.

Although, of the four individuals investigated for misconduct,

Respondent was the only deputy who Sheriff Gualtieri dismissed,

none of the others were charged with violating Rule 5 - 6,

Truthfulness . Further, neither of the two ÐcomparatorsÑ

Respondent referenced at the final hearing, were disciplined (and

not terminated) based on a charge of untruthfulness.

3) State a conclusion whether the Civil

Service Board should either sustain, modify,

or not sustain the action being appealed.

85. Based on the evidence in the record, the undersigned

concludes that the Civil Service Board should sustain Sheriff

GualtieriÓs decision to dismiss Respondent for cause under

the Civil Service Act. RespondentÓ s violations of General

Order 3 - 1. 1, Rule 5.4 and Rule 5.6, total 60 points under the

disciplinary scale set forth in General Order 10 - 2. The

discipline range for 60 points includes termination. Therefore,

Sheriff Gualtieri was authorized to terminate Res pondentÓs

employment based on her violations of SheriffÓs Office rules and

regulations.

86. In sum, the SheriffÓs Office met its burden of proving,

by a preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in the

record, that Respondent violated Civil Ser vice Act, section 6,

and General Order 3 - 1 . Therefore, Sheriff Gualtieri had ÐcauseÑ

to dismiss Respondent. The SheriffÓs Office also proved that the

discipline Sheriff Gualtieri elected to impose (dismissal) is

consistent with action taken against other members who contravened

the SheriffÓs policy on truthfulness. Accordingly, the Sh eriffÓs

Office provided sufficient grounds and a legal basis to terminate

Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION S

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is R ECOMMENDED that Peti tioner, Pinellas County SheriffÓ s

Office, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Cynthia

Graham, violated General Order 3 - 1.1, Rule 5.4, Duties and

Responsibilities, and Rule 5.6, Truthfulness. It is further

RECOMMENDED that Sher iff GualtieriÓs decision to terminate

Respondent from her employment w ith the Pinellas County SheriffÓ s

Office be sustained.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19 th day of July, 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. BRUCE CULPEPPER

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 Admini strative Hearings

this 19 th day of July, 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ All references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2016

version.

2 / See Graham v. Pinellas County Sheriffs Office , Case

No. 15 - 0063 - A P - 88B (6th Jud. Cir. App. Div.) (Order and Opinion

of July 13, 2016, docketed with DOAH on July 18, 2016).

3 / At the start of the final hearing, the undersigned addressed

several motions. Following argument from the parties, th e

undersigned denied PetitionerÓ s Motion in Limine Concerning

Compa rator Discipline and RespondentÓ s Income, as well as

PetitionerÓ s Motion t o Strike and Exclude RespondentÓ s Notice of

Exhibits and Witnesses, filed January 17, 2017. The unde rsigned

granted PetitionerÓ s Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Deputies

Gilberto Perez and Michelle Gam mon , and for a Protective Order ;

and Motion to Quash Subpoena to Deputy Daunika Burge , and for a

Protective Order.

Respondent renewed her Notice of Expiration of Hearing

Responsibility and Motion f or Dismissal of Findings of

Interoffice Memorandum dated A ugust 14, 2015. This motion was

denied. Respondent also moved for a directed verdict , which was

denied. At the conclusion of the evidence, Respondent again

renewed her Ð Notice of Expiration of Hearing Responsibility and

Motion for Dismissal of Findings of Interoffice Mem orandum dated

August 14, 2015,Ñ which was denied.

4 / On April 10, 2015, Gilberto Perez held the rank of Corporal.

As such, he is referred to as Ð Corporal Perez Ñ in this

Recommended Order. Sheriff Gualtieri subsequently demoted

Corpora l Perez to deputy based on his actions in this matter.

5 / See Fl a . Admin . Code R . 28 - 106.216.

6 / In this administrative proceeding, the undersigned is not

bound by the conclusions or factual findings of the AI D

investigators or the ARB. Similarly, the undersigned gives no

deference to Sheriff GualtieriÓs acceptance and endorsement of

the ARBÓs recommendation. The Civil Service Act directs that the

undersigned is to conduct the final hearing Ðpursuant to

chapter 120, Florida Statutes,Ñ and Ð according to the rules

followed by DOAH in ac cordance with Florida Statutes.Ñ See Civil

Service Act, Section 8(d), and Civil Service Board Rules of

Procedure, Section 5. As such, this proceeding was conducted

Ðde novo.Ñ See § 120.057(1)(k), Fla. Stat.

According ly, whether the SheriffÓs Office produced

sufficient competent substantial evidence to meet its burden of

proof in this Ðde novoÑ administrative proceeding is based on and

measured by all the evidence and testimony adduced during the

final hearing. See § 120.057(1)(l), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the

undersignedÓs analysis may include evidence and observations

Sheriff Gualtieri did not previously contemplate. Similarly, the

undersigned may disregard unproven or unsupported evidence t hat

was previously consider ed.

In particular, at the final hearing, the SheriffÓs Office

introduced evidence of prior recorded statements from Deputy

Lindsey Knaut and Deputy Brook Mahoney , which AI D investigators

and the ARB obtained during the 2015 investigation. These

out - of - c ourt statements are clearly hearsay. See § 90.801(1)(c),

Fla. Stat. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Ð[h]earsay

evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or

explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in

itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over

objection in civil actions.Ñ See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

Consequently, the undersigned makes no findings of fact based

solely on these out - of - court statements.

Further, if the purpose of the chapter 120 e videntiary

hearing is to suss out all th e relevant facts and allow the

Ð affected parties an opportunity to change the agency Ó s mind, Ñ

then, logically, it should be the facts and observations gathered

at the hearing that carry the day and upon which any fin al action

by the agency is predicated. See J.D. v. Fla. DepÓ t of Child. &

Fams. , 114 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013 ), citing with approval

Couch Const. Co. v. Dep Ó t of Transp. , 361 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1978); see also Caber Sys., Inc. v. Dep Ó t of Gen. Servs. ,

530 So. 2d 325, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Consequently, in this

administrative proceeding, the undersigned created a new

evidentiary record based upon an impartial and unbiased review of

the historical and objective facts and witness testimony

de veloped during the final hearing.

7 / As indicated in endnote 6 above, Sheriff Gualtieri also

testified that he relied on statements reportedly made by Deputy

Knaut and Deputy Mahoney to AI D investigators and the ARB.

Neither Deputy Knaut nor Deputy Maho ney spoke directly to Sheriff

Gualtieri about the incident. Neither did they testify at the

final hearing. Consequently, no findings of fact are made based

on their hearsay statements. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat., and

Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 - 106.213(3 ).

8 / Respondent supported her ÐcomparatorÑ testimony with documents

indicating that Deputy ZuloagaÓs discipline is found in PSCO

Case No.: AI - 14 - 038, dated January 28, 2015 ; and that Deputy

PettifordÓs discipline is found in PSCO Case No.: AI - 15 - 040,

dated October 12, 2015.

9 / See Young v. DepÓt of Educ. , 943 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA

2006)(Ð[I]t is the responsibility of the administrative law judge

to evaluate and weigh the testimony and other evidence submitted

at the hearing to resolve factua l conflicts, and to arrive at

findings of fact.Ñ); Reily Enters., LLC v. Fla. DepÓt of Envtl.

Prot. , 990 So. 2d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (ÐEvidentiary

matters such as credibility of witnesses and resolution of

conflicting evidence are the prerogative of the [Administrative

Law Judge] as finder of fact in administrative proceedings.); and

Resnick v. Flagler C n ty. Sch. Bd. , 46 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2010)(Ð[W]here an employeeÓs conduct is at issue, great

weight is given to the findings of the [A dministrative Law

Judge], who has the opportunity to hear the witnessesÓ testimony

and evaluate their credibility.Ñ).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

10750 Ulmerton Road

Largo, Florida 33778

(eServed)

Ja n Thomas Govan, Esquire

Govan Law Group P.A.

542 Bay Avenue

Clearwater, Florida 33756

(eServed)

Michelle Wallace , Esquire

Pinellas County AttorneyÓs Office

315 Court Street, Sixth Floor

Clearwater, Florida 33756

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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.