STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,

CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING
COMMISSION,

Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 23-2751PL

GREGORY S. TONY,

Respondent.
_____________________________/

PETITIONER'S PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

designated Administrative Law Judge, Robert L. Kilbride, held a formal hearing via

Zoom videoconference between Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Tallahassee, Florida

on February 6, 2024. The following appearances were entered:

For Petitioner: Natalie Bielby

Assistant General Counsel
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
P.O. Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
NatalieBielby@fdle.state.fl.us

For Respondent: Stephen G. Webster

Webster & Baptiste Attorneys at Law, PLLC
1785 Thomasville Rd
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
sw@websterandbaptiste.com

Filed April 22, 2024 2:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings

 Louis Jean-Baptiste, Jr.
Webster & Baptiste Attorneys at Law, PLLC
1785 Thomasville Rd
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
lb@websterandbaptiste.com

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations

alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The parties in this Proposed Recommended Order will be referred to as follows:

Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, will be

referred to as "Petitioner” or "the Commission". Respondent, Sheriff Gregory S. Tony,

will be referred to as "Respondent" or “Sheriff Tony”.

Any references to the trial transcript filed herein will be designated as "Tr.",

followed by the page number and line number. References to exhibits filed herein will

be designated as "EX-".

PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY MATTERS

The Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent on

June 27th, 2022, and alleged that on or about March 15, 2002, February 3, 2004,

October 19, 2005, August 23, 2007, December 2, 2013, March 15, 2017, June 23, 2017,

and February 1, 2019, the Respondent did unlawfully and knowingly make a false

statement, knowingly conceal a material fact, or otherwise commit fraud in any

application for a driver license or identification, in violation of Section 322.212(5)(a),

2
Florida Statutes, or any lesser included offenses. Petitioner also alleges that the

Respondent is in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-

27.0011(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and that the Respondent failed to

maintain the qualifications established by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which

requires that law enforcement officers in the State of Florida have good moral

character. On July 6, 2022, the Respondent filed an Election of Rights form disputing

the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal

hearing.

The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which

noticed and conducted a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes, on February 6, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the Petitioner dismissed counts

one through three within the Administrative Complaint due to the Respondent not

being certified as a law enforcement officer within the State of Florida during the

stated time period. Therefore, the remaining counts at issue are the violation dates of

August 23, 2007, December 2, 2013, March 15, 2017, June 23, 2017, and February 1,

2019. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses:

Erica Gaines, Brittni Wong, Inspector Keith Riddick, and Michelle Rolle. The

Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, Sonia Colon, and did offer

testimony on his own behalf. Petitioner offered ten exhibits into evidence: Petitioner’s

EX-A, EX-B, EX-C, EX-D, EX-E, EX-F, EX-G, EX-H, EX-I, and EX-M, which were

admitted into evidence. Respondent offered three exhibits into evidence: Respondent’s

3
EX-R1, EX-R2, and EX-R3, which were admitted into evidence. The Petitioner

ordered a transcript of the proceedings.

The parties were granted 10 days after the filing of the transcript with the

Division in which to file Proposed Recommended Orders. On March 6, 2024, the

parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended

Orders. Thereafter, the parties were given until April 22, 2024, in which to file

Proposed Recommended Orders.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the exhibits received into evidence and the testimony of the

witnesses at the hearing, the Petitioner submits the following proposed findings of

fact:

1. The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State

of Florida by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on

November 22, 2005, and issued Law Enforcement Certification #253017. Tr. 50,

lines 8-10; Tr. 52, lines 3-4. EX-A.

2. The Respondent was previously employed by the Coral Springs Police

Department from November 8, 2005, to September 29, 2016. He has been employed

with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office since January 11, 2019, in his capacity as

Sheriff. Tr. 50, lines 1-5; Tr. 248, lines 19-24; Tr. 249, lines 7-24. EX-A.

4
 3. The Respondent was born in the state of Pennsylvania and previously

possessed a Pennsylvania driver license. Tr. 250, lines 16-25; Tr. 251, lines 1-20. Tr.

121, lines 9-13. EX-B, EX-D.

4. On January 23, 1998, the Respondent’s Pennsylvania driver license

was suspended for his failure to appear for a trial or court appearance. Tr. 119,

lines 3-20; Tr. 136, lines 21-25; Tr. 137, lines 1-2. EX-B.

5. On March 19, 2000, the Respondent was stopped by a Florida Highway

Patrol Trooper in Liberty County, Florida, and was informed of his suspended

license at that time. The Respondent’s license was then reinstated on October 11,

2001. Tr. 281, lines 2-10; Tr. 251, lines 21-25; Tr. 252, lines 1-12. EX-B.

6. The Respondent applied for and received Florida driver license number

T500-297-78-416-0 on October 16, 2001. Tr. 122, lines 1-3. EX-C, EX-D, Composite

EX-F.

7. Driver license examiners employed by the Florida Department of

Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “FLDHSMV”)

oversee the issuance of new and replacement Florida driver licenses. A driver

license examiner’s duties also include providing road tests, issuing identification

cards, and reinstating driver licenses. Tr. 56, lines 23-25; Tr. 57, lines 1-5.

8. When renewing, replacing, or issuing a new Florida driver license, an

examiner is required to confirm the applicant’s biographical information, such as

name, address, gender, and height, along with answers to specific questions

5
provided by the applicant. If an applicant already has a Florida driver license,

biographical information can be copied over from an applicant’s prior driver license

application. Tr. 63, lines 2-11. Tr. 75, lines 18-23; Tr. 135, lines 8-10; Tr. 199, lines

22-25; Tr. 200, lines 1-6; Tr. 308, lines 17-25; Tr. 309, lines 1-8. EX-I at 8:25-8:50.

9. A driver license examiner is required to audibly ask the applicant all

questions listed under the “Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card”

section within the application. These questions must be asked by the examiner on

every single driver license or identification card application and the applicant is

required to answer. The answers to these questions do not self-populate from an

applicant’s prior application. Tr. 63, lines 12-25; Tr. 66, lines 1-8; Tr. 76, lines 5-8;

Tr. 89, lines 1-23; Tr. 104; lines 3-24; Tr. 105, lines 2-6; Tr. 200, lines 7-25; Tr. 201,

lines 1-3; Tr. 207, lines 8-4; Tr. 309, lines 9-14; Tr. 310, lines 2-4; Tr. 327, lines 22-

25; Tr. 328, lines 1-6. EX-H at 5:35-5:55, EX-I at 5:25-5:42 and 7:25-7:40.

10. The required questions listed under the “Statement of Applicant

Concerning License or ID Card” section are:

i. Has your driving privilege ever been revoked, suspended, or denied in any
state?
ii. Have you ever been convicted of an alcohol or drug related offense in your
lifetime?
iii. Do you have possession or under your control a valid driver license issued
by the state of Florida, or any other state except those listed herein?
iv. Are you a part time resident, employed or have military assignment in
Florida?
v. Is it necessary to retain your out-of-state driver license?

6
Tr. 132, lines 7-24; Tr. 207, lines 17-25; Tr. 208, lines 1-2. Composite EX-F,

Composite EX-G.

11. Additionally, after completion of the application, the applicant is

required to sign an attestation, which states “under penalty of perjury, I swear or

affirm that the information given by me in this application is true and correct...”.

Composite EX-F, Composite EX-G.

12. Prior to this attestation, the applicant is able to review his or her

biographical data and confirm that the information is correct. The applicant is not

able to review his or her answers to the questions listed under the “Statement of

Applicant Concerning License or ID Card” section. Tr. 95, lines 15-25; Tr. 96, lines

1-15. Tr. 108, lines 10-24; Tr. 110, lines 16-24; Tr. 171, lines 19-25; Tr. 172, lines 1-

3; Tr. 212, lines 10-22; Tr. 323, lines 19-25; Tr. 324, lines 1-2. EX-I at 7:05-7:25.

13. Driver license examiners are trained to be accurate in each

transaction, as failure to do so could result in being disciplined. Tr. 314, line 25; Tr.

315, lines 1-6.

14. Inspector Keith Riddick is employed by the Florida Department of Law

Enforcement within the Office of Executive Investigations, where he investigates

public corruption, crimes, elected officials, and other types of public servants. Tr.

113, lines 17-20; Tr. 114, lines 5-14.

15. On May 8, 2020, Inspector Riddick began investigating the Respondent

based on a request from the Governor’s office. The initial complaint referenced false

7
answers given by the Respondent on an application sent to the Governor’s office but

did not reference the allegations in this case. Tr. 115, lines 15-25; Tr. 116, lines 1-

23; Tr. 141, lines 11-14.

16. As part of that investigation, Inspector Riddick requested records from

Pennsylvania, including the Respondent’s driving record, which showed that the

Respondent’s Pennsylvania driver license had previously been suspended. This

discovery led to further investigation, which showed that the Respondent had

applied for numerous replacements of his Florida driver license. Tr. 117, lines 8-25;

Tr. 118, lines 1-6 and 19-24; Tr. 121, lines 18-25. EX-B, Composite EX-F, Composite

EX-G.

17. On the Respondent’s Florida driver license applications dated October

16, 2001, August 22, 2003, and June 1, 2005, when asked if the Respondent had

ever had his driving privilege revoked, suspended, or denied in any state, he

responded “yes” and attested to that answer with his signature. This response is

truthful according to the Respondent’s driving record. Tr. 122, lines 14-25; Tr. 123,

lines 1-19; Tr. 124, lines 3-19; Tr. 125, lines 9-24; Tr. 169, lines 13-16. EX-D,

Composite EX-F.

18. However, on the Respondent’s Florida driver license applications dated

August 23, 2007, December 2, 2013, March 15, 2017, June 23, 2017, and February

1, 2019, when questioned if he had ever had his driving privilege revoked,

suspended, or denied in any state, the Respondent replied “no” and attested to that

8
answer with his signature. These statements are untruthful according to the

Respondent’s driving record. Tr. 127-130. EX-D, Composite EX-G.

19. The driver license applications completed by the Respondent on

August 23, 2007, March 15, 2017, and June 23, 2017, were likely completed online

as evidenced by the signature code “X”. The signature code “X” means that it was an

online application issued through the Tallahassee, Florida central issuance branch.

Tr. 216, lines 20-25. Composite EX-G.

20. Inspector Riddick was not able to confirm whether the online

application for a FL driver license renewal or replacement requires the applicant to

answer the questions listed under the “Statement of Applicant Concerning License

or ID Card” section. However, Inspector Riddick testified that in his own personal

experience, he was required to sign the attestation section to complete his

application. Tr. 174, lines 15-25; Tr. 175, lines 1-15; Tr. 178, lines 11-17; Tr. 179,

lines 11-18; Tr. 202, lines 1-2.

21. During his investigation, Inspector Riddick interviewed several

FLDHSMV employees regarding the process of renewing or replacing a Florida

driver license, including Brittni Wong, Michelle Rolle, and Barbara Peacock. Tr.

130-132; Tr. 182, lines 7-15. EX-H, EX-I. All three individuals confirmed that only

biographical data can be transferred over from an applicant’s prior application; the

questions listed under “Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card”

cannot. Tr. 133, lines 2-10; Tr. 134, lines 7-25; Tr. 201, lines 5-8.

9
 22. On January 27, 2021, Inspector Riddick conducted a sworn, recorded

interview Brittni Wong in regard to the Respondent’s February 1, 2019 driver

license replacement application. Tr. 68, lines 15-19; Tr. 130, lines 10-13; Tr. 143,

lines 7-12; Tr. 144, lines 10-12. EX-I, EX-R3.

23. Inspector Riddick spoke briefly with Ms. Wong prior to the recorded

interview. He introduced himself, informed her as to what the investigation was

about, asked her if she remembered being the driver license examiner that

processed the Respondent’s application, and stated that he had a few questions for

her. At no point did Inspector Riddick instruct Ms. Wong on what he wanted her to

say during the recorded interview. Instead, he specifically instructed her not to try

to come up with answers. Tr. 72, lines 24-25; Tr. 73, lines 1-25; Tr. 144, lines 14-22;

Tr. 145, lines 5-13; Tr. 198, lines 3-22; EX-I at 3:20 – 3:40.

24. On January 29, 2021, Inspector Riddick conducted a sworn, recorded

interview of Michelle Rolle. Ms. Rolle worked for FLDHSMV for approximately

twenty years and became a program manager at the Lauderdale Lakes office

location in 2016. As a program manager, she oversaw the driver license examiners,

which included making sure they were performing their jobs correctly along with

auditing each examiner. Tr. 304, lines 5-25; Tr. 305, lines 1-9; Tr. 317, lines 12-24.

EX-H at 1:40-2:10 and 2:20-2:35.

25. Ms. Wong, formerly known as Brittni Romero, was employed by the

FLDHSMV as a driver license examiner from 2017 to 2021 at the Lauderdale Lakes

10
office location. She was required to complete two weeks of training and was then

provided with one-on-one training with another driver license examiner for a six-

month period. Tr. 56, lines 10-22; Tr. 58, lines 14-25; Tr. 67, lines 8-14; Tr. 209,

lines 20-23. EX-I at 1:27 – 3:30.

26. On February 1, 2019, Ms. Rolle received a call from Sonia Colon

regarding the Respondent coming to the Lauderdale Lakes location to replace his

driver license. Ms. Colon requested that he be allowed to enter through the back

door of the office to not be seen by the general public. Tr. 68, lines 1-5; Tr. 244, lines

5-9. Tr. 305, lines 21-25; Tr. 306, lines 1-2. EX-H at 2:35-3:20, EX-I at 4:20-4:30.

27. On February 1, 2019, Ms. Wong was the driver license examiner that

oversaw the Respondent’s driver’s license replacement application. Ms. Wong’s

agency ID number is listed on the application. Tr. 59, lines 17-22; Tr. 60, lines 2-7;

Tr. 84, lines 18-24; Tr. 94, lines 2-25; Tr. 190, lines 4-7. EX-C, EX-D, Composite EX-

G, EX-H at 4:00-4:20. EX-I at 3:50-5:25.

28. Ms. Wong confirmed that it was “Bring Your Kid to Work Day” within

the office and things were a little hectic. Tr. 68, lines 7-13.

29. Ms. Wong recalls the Respondent being very chatty during her

interaction with him. She also recalls while processing the Respondent’s driver

license replacement application, verbally asking him the questions listed within the

“Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card” section. Specifically, she

verbally questioned him as to whether his license had ever been revoked,

11
suspended, or denied in any state. Tr. 64, lines 1-2 and 10-17; Tr. 106, lines 14-23;

Tr. 135, lines 16-21. EX-I at 10:00-10:15 and 11:15-11:40.

30. The Respondent denied that his license had ever been suspended. He

attested to the information within his driver license replacement application, under

penalty of perjury, by signing on the keypad in front of Ms. Wong. Tr. 64, lines 18-

20; Tr. 65, lines 23-25; Tr. 107, lines 12-20; Tr. 109, lines 5-10. EX-I at 14:40-16:00.

31. Ms. Wong confirmed that every applicant is required to provide his or

her signature and attest that the information he or she provided was accurate and

truthful under penalty of perjury. Tr. 65, lines 18-22.

32. On February 1, 2019, Ms. Rolle was assigned as Ms. Wong’s program

manager. While overseeing Ms. Wong, Ms. Rolle never had any issues with her

quality of work. Tr. 315, lines 7-10. EX-I at 14:00-14:18.

33. During Ms. Wong’s sworn recorded interview with Inspector Riddick,

Ms. Wong initially appears hesitant, scared, and nervous, thereby causing her to

give uncertain answers. However, once calm, Ms. Wong is confident in her answers

and confirms that she did in fact ask the Respondent whether his license had ever

been revoked, suspended or denied in any state. The same pattern seems to occur

during cross-examination while Ms. Wong is under the stress of being questioned by

opposing counsel. However, her final answers to opposing counsel are consistent

with her sworn recorded statement. Tr. 156, lines 1-7; Tr. 182, lines 16-23; Tr. 199,

lines 1-16. EX-I.

12
 34. Upon completion of his investigation, Inspector Riddick concluded that

the Respondent had violated Florida statute due to the Respondent giving a false

answer on his February 1, 2019, driver license replacement application. Thereafter,

Inspector Riddick forwarded his findings to the State Attorney’s Office. Tr. 135,

lines 22-35; Tr. 136, lines 1-10; Tr. 138, lines 1-15; Tr. 141, lines 16-24; Tr. 146,

lines 13-16; Tr. 201, lines 9-14. EX-R2.

35. Inspector Riddick did not investigate the Respondent’s August 23,

2007, December 2, 2013, March 15, 2017, and June 23, 2017, applications due to the

possibility of pursuing charges being barred by Statute of Limitations. Tr. 136, lines

6-10; Tr. 159, lines 1-22; Tr. 163, lines 2-10; Tr. 166, lines 15-20; Tr. 168, lines 19-

22; Tr. 177, lines 1-20; Tr. 188, lines 17-24.

36. The State Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the February 1, 2019,

which has no bearing on the case at hand, as the burden of “beyond a reasonable

doubt” is substantially higher than the burden of “clear and convincing evidence”,

which is utilized in an administrative licensure case. Tr. 153, lines 17-24; Tr. 181,

lines 14-20; Tr. 201, lines15-17. EX-R1.

37. Sonia Colon testified on behalf of the Respondent. She is originally

from Pennsylvania and has known the Respondent for decades. Ms. Colon lived two

blocks away from the Respondent in Pennsylvania, previously lived with the

Respondent in Florida on two separate occasions and has engaged in a romantic

relationship with the Respondent. She has even acted as a character reference for

13
the Respondent and aided in him obtaining a position at FLDHSMV as a

Management Analyst I. Tr. 240, lines 6-20; Tr. 241, lines 2-25; Tr. 242, lines 1-15.

242, lines 21-25; Tr. 243, line 1.

38. Ms. Colon has been employed by the FLDHSMV for approximately

twenty-two years and has worked in various positions within the agency. However,

she has never worked as a driver license examiner. Tr. 206, lines 10-20; Tr. 238,

lines 15-18.

39. Ms. Colon was not present during the Respondent’s application for a

replacement driver’s license on February 1, 2019. Therefore, she could not testify as

to whether Ms. Wong correctly processed his application on that date. Tr. 239, lines

16-25; Tr. 240, lines 1-2.

40. Ms. Colon asserts that audits of the FLDHSMV routinely produce

results that indicate the driver’s license examiners do not always ask all of the

questions they are required to. However, she has never audited Ms. Wong and

cannot speak to her standard of work, nor was she able to provide testimony to

support that claim. Tr. 208, lines 17-25; Tr. 209, lines 1-7. Tr. 239, lines 6-15.

41. Ms. Colon conceded that a driver license examiner does not have easy

access to view an applicant’s prior application and therefore, Ms. Wong could not

see how the Respondent previously answered questions within his prior

applications. Tr. 232, lines 7-15; Tr. 319, lines 14-25; Tr. 320, lines 1-20.

14
 42. Ms. Colon attempts to confuse the Court with explanations of

“toggling” and “scanning”. Thereafter, she admits, based on her review of the

Respondent’s February 1, 2019, application, that the “toggling” and “scanning”

possibilities did not apply to that transaction. Tr. 223, lines 15-25; Tr. 224, lines 1-

5.

43. Once questioned further by the Court, Ms. Colon clarifies that the

questions listed within the “Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card”

must be specifically and orally asked by the driver license examiner. Further, the

answers to those questions must be entered by the examiner while the applicant is

in front of him or her. Tr. 228, lines 16-25.

44. The Respondent did testify on his own behalf. Tr. 248-274.

45. The Respondent admits that he knew his license was previously

suspended. Tr. 252, lines 1-12.

46. The Respondent admits to completing his driver license renewal

request online on August 23, 2007. He “does not recall” having to answer as to

whether his driver license had ever been suspended or revoked. Tr. 256, lines 4-25;

Tr. 257, lines 2-4. EX-G.

47. The Respondent admits to visiting a physical office location to renew or

replace his license on December 2, 2013. He denies answering any questions under

the section labeled “Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID card”. Tr. 258,

lines 13-25; Tr. 259, line 1.

15
 48. The Respondent denies ever being informed that he was attesting to

the questions under penalty of perjury on any of his driver license renewal and

replacement applications. Tr. 260, lines 5-20, Tr. 164, lines 20-25.

49. The Respondent admits to renewing his license online on March 15,

2017. Tr. 262.

50. The Respondent admits to renewing or replacing his license online on

June 23, 2017. Tr. 264, lines 1-6.

51. The Respondent, during direct examination, vehemently denies being

asked whether his driver license had ever been revoked, suspended or denied in any

state on any application. However, during cross-examination, he now “does not

recall” whether he was asked the required questions within the “Statement of

Applicant Concerning License or ID Card” section. Tr. 270, lines 1-5; Tr. 281, lines

21-24.

52. The Respondent classifies Petitioner’s pursuit of this case as an

“intended assault”, thereby attacking his character in hopes that he does not win

the 2020 election for Sheriff. Tr. 273, lines 15-22.

53. The Respondent signed and attested to his driver license applications

dated August 23, 2007, December 2, 2013, March 15, 2017, June 23, 2017, and

February 1, 2019. EX-E. Composite EX-G.

54. The Respondent was untruthful during cross-examination. He stated

that Inspector Riddick contacted him and asked the following question: “If a driver’s

16
license examiner had asked you the question as to whether or not your license was

suspended, what would that answer be?” Inspector Riddick testified that this

conversation never took place. Tr. 283, lines 1-6; Tr. 287, lines 19-25; Tr. 332, lines

19-23; Tr. 333, lines 3-13.

55. On June 22, 2022, the Respondent was interviewed by Jimmy Cefalo

on his podcast titled “First News with Jimmy Cefalo”. During that interview, when

questioned about his actions concerning the alleged falsification of answers on his

driver license applications, the Respondent admitted that “on [his] driver’s license

applications, [he’s] said yes a few times”, and he’s “omitted or missed one or two

here or there.” EX-M at 1:05-1:15.

PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the applicable principles of

law, the Petitioner offers the following proposed conclusions of law:

1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties and the subject matter of these proceedings.

2. Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides that “[f]indings of fact

shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, except in penal or licensure

disciplinary proceedings or except as otherwise provided by statute, and shall be

based exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters officially recognized.”

3. Because disciplinary proceedings are considered penal in nature, the

agency prosecuting a license disciplinary complaint has the burden of proving the

17
allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Dep’t

of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. V. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So.2d 932

(Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Dep’t of Law Enf’t,

Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm’n, Pet’r v. Russell L. Johnson,

Resp’t, 2020 WL 360522 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hrgs.); Dep’t of Law Enf’t, Criminal

Justice Standards and Training Com’n, Pet’r v. Kurn Tsuk Ho Lam, Resp’t, 2020

WL 1701876 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hrgs.); Dieguez v. Dep’t of Law Enf’t, Criminal

Justice Standards and Training Com’n, 947 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

4. Clear and convincing evidence “requires more proof than a

‘preponderance of the evidence’ but less than ‘beyond and to the exclusion of a

reasonable doubt.” In re Graziano, 696 So.2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997).

5. Section 943.13, F.S., establishes the minimum qualifications for

certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Subsection (7) provides: “[h]ave

a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under

procedures established by the Commission.”

6. Section 943.1395 (7), F.S., authorizes the Commission to specify by

rule the definition of “good moral character” for purposes of implementing the

penalties the Commission may levy against an officer for violating the “good moral

character” clause contained in Section 943.13(7), F.S., after the officer is certified.

Subsections 943.1395 (6) and (7), F.S., provide that:

(6) The commission shall revoke the certification of any officer who is
not in compliance with the provisions of s. 943.13(4) or who

18
intentionally executes a false affidavit established in s. 943.13(8), s.
943.133(2), or s. 943.139(2).
(a) The commission shall cause to be investigated any ground for
revocation from the employing agency pursuant to s. 943.139 or from
the Governor, and the commission may investigate verifiable
complaints. Any investigation initiated by the commission pursuant to
this section must be completed within 6 months after receipt of the
completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation
from the employing agency or Governor's office. A verifiable complaint
shall be completed within 1 year after receipt of the complaint. An
investigation shall be considered completed upon a finding by a
probable cause panel of the commission. These time periods shall be
tolled during the period of any criminal prosecution of the officer.
(b) The report of misconduct and all records or information provided to
or developed by the commission during the course of an investigation
conducted by the commission are exempt from the provisions of s.
119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and, except as
otherwise provided by law, such information shall be subject to public
disclosure only after a determination as to probable cause has been
made or until the investigation becomes inactive.
(c) When an officer's certification is revoked in any discipline, his or
her certification in any other discipline shall simultaneously be
revoked.
(7) Upon a finding by the commission that a certified officer has not
maintained good moral character, the definition of which has been
adopted by rule and is established as a statewide standard, as required
by s.943.13(7), the commission may enter an order imposing one or
more of the following penalties:
(a) Revocation of certification.
(b) Suspension of certification for a period not to exceed 2 years.
(c) Placement on a probationary status for a period not to exceed 2
years, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the commission.
Upon the violation of such terms and conditions, the commission may
revoke certification or impose additional penalties as enumerated in
this subsection.
(d) Successful completion by the officer of any basic recruit, advanced,
or career development training or such retraining deemed appropriate
by the commission.
(e) Issuance of a reprimand.

19
 7. In Zemour, Inc. v. Division of Beverage, 347 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA

1977), an applicant for a beverage license was denied after an administrative

finding that the owner was not of good moral character. Although the facts leading

to this conclusion are entirely dissimilar to the instant case, the court's definition of

moral character is significant:

Moral character as used in this statute, means not only the ability to
distinguish between right and wrong, but the character to observe the
difference; the observance of the rules of right conduct, and conduct
which indicates and establishes the qualities generally acceptable to
the populace for positions of trust and confidence.

Such definition should be used in the case at bar.

8. In Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454 (Fla.

1978), the Florida Supreme Court stated:

In our view a finding of a lack of “good moral character” should not be

restricted to those acts that reflect moral turpitude. A more
appropriate definition of the phrase requires an inclusion of acts and
conduct which would cause a reasonable man to have substantial
doubts about an individual's honesty, fairness, and respect for the
rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.

See also White v. Beary, 237 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).

9. Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), F.A.C. (2006, 2013, 2017, and 2018), provides

a definition of “good moral character” for purposes of implementation of disciplinary

action upon Florida officers. The rule states in pertinent part:

(4) For the purposes of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training
Commission’s implementation of any of the penalties specified in
Section 943.1395(6) or (7), F.S., a certified officer’s failure to maintain
good moral character required in Section 943.13(7), F.S., is defined as:

20
 (c) The perpetration by an officer of an act that would
constitute any felony offense, whether criminally prosecuted
or not.

10. Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Complaint states the Respondent

committed an offense in violation of 322.212(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Section

322.212(5)(a) states in part, “[i]t is unlawful for any person to…in any application

for a driver license or identification card…knowingly to make a false statement,

knowingly conceal a material fact, or otherwise commit a fraud in any such

application.” (emphasis added).

11. Section 322.212(6), Florida Statutes, provides that a violation of this

section is a felony of the third degree.

12. Section 322.212(1)(d), Florida Statutes, defines “driver license” to

include a driver license issued by the department or its agents or a driver license

issued by any state or jurisdiction that issues licenses recognized in the state of

Florida for the operation of a motor vehicle.

13. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Respondent knowingly

violated the provisions of section 322.212 (5)(a), Florida Statutes when he made

multiple applications for a Florida Driver License on the above referenced dates and

failed to disclose that his driving privilege had previously been revoked, suspended,

or denied in the state of Pennsylvania. The Petitioner has presented credible,

impartial and unbiased evidence through the testimony of both Brittni Wong and

Michelle Rolle. Ms. Wong was a trained and experienced FLDHSMV driver license

21
examiner who worked at the Lauderdale Lakes office for approximately four years.

Michelle Rolle supervised the license examiners, including Ms. Wong, and had

approximately twenty years of experience. Ms. Wong and Ms. Rolle testified about

the application process and the information obtained during that process. They

distinguished between biographical information that is collected, such as name,

address, gender, and height versus the information obtained via the questions listed

under the “Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card” section. As

noted above, it is this portion of the application that contains the question, “has

your driving privilege ever been revoked, suspended, or denied in any state?” These

witnesses testified that a driver license examiner is required to audibly ask the

applicant all the questions listed under the “Statement of Applicant Concerning

License or ID Card” section within the application. These questions must be asked

by the examiner on every single driver license or identification card application and

the applicant is required to answer. The driver license examiner is trained to then

record the applicant’s answer. Unlike an applicant’s biographical information,

which can be transferred from a prior application, the answers to these questions

cannot.

On February 1, 2019, Ms. Wong was the driver license examiner that oversaw the

Respondent’s driver’s license replacement application. Ms. Wong testified that she

remembered processing the Respondent’s driver license replacement application on

that date, and she did in fact verbally ask him the questions listed within the

22
“Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card” section. Specifically, she

verbally asked the Respondent whether his license had ever been revoked,

suspended, or denied in any state. The Respondent denied that his license had ever

been suspended. Ms. Wong and Ms. Rolle are trained professionals with many

years of experience. They are credible, impartial, and unbiased witnesses whose

testimony should be given great weight.

Although the Respondent admits that he did apply for the licenses on these

multitude of dates, he claims he was never asked the question, “has your driving

privilege ever been revoked, suspended, or denied in any state?” To support his

argument, the Respondent offered the testimony of Sonia Colon and his own

testimony. The testimony of Ms. Colon however, is clearly biased. She has known

the Respondent for decades, she is the Respondent’s ex-lover, and she has lived with

the Respondent on two separate occasions. Putting aside Ms. Colon’s obvious bias,

her testimony is also not relevant to this case. Although Ms. Colon is employed

with the FLDHSMV, she did not work in the capacity as a driver license examiner,

she is unfamiliar with Ms. Wong’s quality of work, and she was not present during

the Respondent’s application for a replacement driver’s license on February 1, 2019,

which was conducted by Ms. Wong. In short, her statement that driver license

examiners do not always ask all the questions that they are required to, is merely

speculation and not pertinent to this case, as she admitted herself that she is

unable to say whether Ms. Wong processed the application correctly. In fact, once

23
questioned further by the Court, Ms. Colon clarified that the questions listed within

the “Statement of Applicant Concerning License or ID Card” must be specifically

and orally asked by the driver license examiner. Further, the answers to those

questions must be entered by the examiner while the applicant is in front of him or

her. In essence, Ms. Colon corroborated the testimony of Ms. Wong and Ms. Rolle

and confirmed that this information cannot be rolled over from a previous

application.

The Respondent testified that he was never asked the question, “has your

driving privilege ever been revoked, suspended, or denied in any state?” He instead

suggests that this information must have somehow been pulled over from a

previous application. However, the Respondent has been unable to offer any actual

evidence that this is what happened in his driver’s license applications at issue in

this case. In fact, evidence would suggest that the Respondent was aware of the

application process, specifically the question asking if his license had ever been

revoked, suspended, or denied in any state. On his applications dated from 2001,

2003, and 2005, before becoming a law enforcement officer, the Respondent

admitted that his license had previously been suspended. It was only after

obtaining his law enforcement certificate that Respondent began to customarily

deny his previous driver’s license suspension in his applications. Additional support

that the Respondent was knowingly untruthful in his applications can be found in

his own statements. On June 22, 2022, the Respondent was interviewed as part of

24
the “First News with Jimmy Cefalo.” During that interview, when questioned

about his actions concerning the alleged falsification of answers on his driver

license applications, the Respondent admitted that “on [his] driver’s license

applications, [he’s] said yes a few times”, and he’s “omitted or missed one or two

here or there.”

The Respondent’s testimony in this case is not credible and is inconsistent

with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. His arguments to this Court are without

merit, as they lack evidentiary support and are based upon the testimony of a

biased witness who has no specific knowledge that is relevant to the facts of the

case.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Petitioner has established by clear and

convincing evidence that the Respondent committed misconduct that, under

applicable administrative rules, established a lack of good moral character. The

offense of Unlawful Acts in Relation to a Driver License, as established by the

evidence in this case, is a violation of good moral character as the term is defined in

Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), F.A.C. Rule 11B-27.005(5)(a), F.A.C., provides that the

guideline penalty range for such misconduct is suspension of certification to

revocation.

13. The Commission has established both aggravating and mitigating

circumstances in rule 11B-27.005(6):

The Commission shall be entitled to deviate from the disciplinary

guidelines in this rule section, upon a showing of aggravating or

25
mitigating circumstances by evidence presented to the Commission, if
pursuant to section 120.57(2), F.S., or to an Administrative Law Judge,
if pursuant to section 120.57(1), F.S., prior to the imposition of a final
penalty. The Commission shall base a deviation from the disciplinary
guidelines upon a finding of one or more of the following:
(a) Aggravating circumstances:
1. Whether the certified officer used official authority to
facilitate the misconduct.
2. Whether the misconduct was committed while the certified
officer was performing other duties.
3. The number of violations found by the Commission.
4. The number and severity of prior disciplinary actions
taken against the certified officer by the Commission,
provided the officer was previously disciplined by the
Commission within the preceding eight years or received a
Letter of Guidance within the preceding five years.
5. The severity of the misconduct.
6. The danger to the public.
7. The actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the
misconduct.
8. The lack of deterrent effect of the penalty imposed by the
employing agency.
9. The pecuniary benefit or self-gain to the officer realized by
the misconduct.
10. Whether the misconduct was motivated by unlawful
discrimination.
11. Any behavior constituting “domestic violence” defined by
section 741.28(2), F.S.
12. Whether the certified officer has previously received a
Letter of Acknowledgement within the preceding three years.
13. The certified officer has not filed any answer to the
Administrative Complaint or otherwise responded to the
allegations of misconduct alleged by the Commission.
(b) Mitigating circumstances:
1. The officer’s employment status in a position requiring
Commission certification at the time of the final hearing
before the Commission.
2. The recommendations of character or employment
references.
3. The lack of severity of the misconduct.
4. The length of time the officer has been certified by the
Commission.

26
 5. Any effort of rehabilitation by the certified officer.
6. The effect of disciplinary or remedial action taken by the
employing agency or recommendations of the employing
agency administrator.
7. The recommendation of a Probable Cause Panel to impose
a penalty below the penalty guideline.
8. Effort of the officer to retract a false statement prior to the
close of the disciplinary or criminal investigation.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION

In recommending the penalty in this case, Petitioner considered the severity of

the misconduct committed by the Respondent. The offense of falsifying information on

a driver license application is an act involving moral turpitude. Most importantly, the

Respondent, the Sheriff of Broward County, is inherently held to a higher standard

due to his position being one of great power within the community. The position of an

officer is one of great public trust and the Respondent’s calculated actions have

broken that trust. There can be no more basic public expectation than that those

who enforce the laws must themselves obey the law. City of Palm Bay v. Bauman,

475 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In this case, the appropriate penalty is a six-

month prospective suspension of certification followed by one year of probation with

the requirement the Respondent complete Commission-approved ethics training.

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is:

RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good

moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), F.S., and that the Respondent’s

certification be subject to the aforementioned discipline.

27
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew Digby

Andrew Digby
Assistant General Counsel
Florida Department of
Law Enforcement
Post Office Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
(850) 410-7676
Florida Bar No. 1003236
Shehla Milliron
Florida Bar No. 114261
ShehlaMilliron@fdle.state.fl.us
Christopher Bufano
Florida Bar No. 15046
ChristopherBufano@fdle.state.fl.us

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Petitioner's Proposed

Recommended Order has been furnished via email to Stephen Webster, Counsel for
Respondent, at sw@websterandbaptiste.com, and Louis Jean-Baptiste, Counsel for
Respondent, at jb@websterandbaptiste.com, on this 22nd day of April, 2024.

/s/ Andrew Digby

Andrew Digby
Assistant General Counsel

28