Filing # 24337257 E-Filed 03/02/2015 09:52:32 AM

BEFORE THE
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
STATE OF FLORIDA

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,

CYNTHIA G. IMPERATO, NO. 13-545

SC15-

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE

o
U

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission served a Notice of Investigation on

Circuit Judge Cynthia G. Imperato, Seventeenth Circuit, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Florida

Judicial Qualification Commission Rules. Pursuant to that Notice, Judge Imperato appeared
before the Investigative Panel of the Commission on January 29, 2015.
The Investigative Panel of the Commission has now entered into a Stipulation
with Judge Imperato in which Judge Imperato admits that the circumstances surrounding her

o
o
o

arrest for Driving Under the Influence and reckless driving were regrettable and improper. This

conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 5A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as set forth in the
Stipulation that is being submitted in conjunction with the filing of the Notice of Formal Charges
and this Findings and Recommendations.

From Judge Imperato the Commission learned that she had attended a bench and
bar function the evening of November 5, 2013 at which she was drinking wine. Over the course
of the evening she recalls having a couple of glasses of wine. She admits that she lost track of
how much she had to drink over the course of the evening. She freely admits that she was in no
condition to operate a motor vehicle that evening and recognizes by driving while impaired she
placed herself and others in danger. Judge Imperato offered that she realizes she was fortunate

she did not have an accident and injure anyone. She also acknowledges that her conduct on that
night eroded public confidence in the judiciary and demeaned the judicial office she holds.
Judge Imperato admits that because of her position, she should not have displayed her
judicial badge or referred to her status as a judge in any way that could have been perceived as
an attempt to use the prestige of her office to obtain preferential treatment. She also admits that

a judge should be faithful to the law and so she should have complied with the officer's lawful
commands and should have agreed to submit to a breathalyzer test. She agrees that a judge
should act at all times in a manner that promotes the public confidence in the judiciary, and that
she regrets that she fell short of this mandate. The foregoing conduct violated Canons 1, 2 and

5A(3).
Regrettably, this Court has previously had to address judges committing DUIs. In
accepting the Commission's recommendation of a public reprimand for Judge Gloeckner, the
Court noted that she cooperated with the police at the scene and regretted and apologized for the
event. In re Gloeckner, 626 So.2d I 89 (Fla. 1993). Judge Esquiroz pled no contest to a charge

of DUI and accepted responsibility before the Commission. In re Esquiroz, 654 So.2d 558 (Fla.
1995). Similarly Judge Sheehan cooperated with law enforcement and accepted full

responsibility before the Commission. In re Sheehan, 139 So.3d 290 (Fla. 2014). In all those
cases a public reprimand was deemed to be the appropriate sanction.
Here, Judge Imperato accepted full responsibility before the Commission and has taken

affirmative steps to avoid the behavior in the future. See In re Lee, 336 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 1976).
However the record demonstrates that Judge Imperato did not cooperate with law enforcement.
She refused lawful commands to exit her vehicle, and she refused to submit to alcohol testing.

This is discouraging given her employment history as both a law enforcement officer, and a
prosecutor.
Another fact distinguishes Judge Imperato's situation. In 1988, in Leon County Florida,

she entered a plea to DUI and failing to follow a lawful command while employed as a law
enforcement officer.
The Investigative Panel finds that Judge Imperato's two DUI cases occurring twenty-five

years apart have never affected her performance as a Judge. To the contrary, Judge Imperato is
held in high esteem by her colleagues and the legal community.
The Commission has determined from the foregoing that the appropriate sanction should
be a Public Reprimand, a $5,000.00 fine, suspension without pay for 20 days, and an alcohol
evaluation with the completion of any recommended treatment pursuant to a contract with
Florida Lawyers Assistance Program.

Dated this ___ dpf oPFhary, 2015.

INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION
by
Hon. Ke I. Evander
Chair of the FJQ C
P.O. Box 14106
Tallahassee, Florida 32317