Libby Investigations v. Department of State, Div. of Licensing, 96-2173
| Decision Date | 20 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2173,96-2173 |
| Citation | 685 So.2d 69 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D19 LIBBY INVESTIGATIONS, Marvin W. Libby, Owner, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Theodore E. Mack of Cobb, Cole & Bell, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Douglas D. Sunshine, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Mr. Libby, a licensed private investigator, appeals a final order of the Department of State, Division of Licensing, imposing a fine of $700 and ordering the revocation of five (5) licenses issued to him by the State of Florida. Mr. Libby argues that the Division erred in imposing a $700 fine without adequately explaining a reason for departing from the penalty suggested in the hearing officer's recommended order. He also contends the amended administrative complaint failed as a matter of law to provide notice that all his licenses were at risk, as compared to the specific licenses he was charged with having obtained by fraud, and therefore, the Division erred in revoking all of his licenses. We affirm the revocation of Mr. Libby's licenses because the complaint was adequate to put Mr. Libby on notice of the charges against him. However, while the record contains evidence which might support a decision to increase the penalty, the only reason for doing so which was actually stated with particularity by the Division (that the hearing officer had found the existence of aggravating circumstances) is not supported by the record. Therefore, we reverse the imposition of the $700 fine and remand for reconsideration.
The licenses issued to Mr. Libby consist of a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License; a Class "C" Private Investigator License; a Class "D" Security Officer License; a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License; and a Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License. He was charged in the administrative complaint with having obtained his Class "C" and Class "M" licenses through fraud, and with failing to cooperate in the investigation. Mr. Libby does not dispute the findings of fact that he submitted, as attachments to his application for the Class "C" Private Investigator License and his application for a Class "M" Private Investigative/Security Agency Manager License, a falsified "Certificate of Training" as a military investigator; as well as another false document which purported to document successful completion of a course in "Military Police Investigation"; as well as another false document which purported to document successful completion of a course in drug recognition and identification. Nor does he dispute that he stated that these documents were genuine (during the course of the investigation) and later feigned a lack of knowledge that they had even been included in his application packages. Additionally, Mr. Libby does not dispute the findings of fact that he falsely misrepresented that he had been stationed in Germany from November 1972 through February 1978, and devoted 100 percent of that time to military police investigations; falsely represented that he had experience as an investigator while employed by the Harrison Detective Agency in Texas; falsely represented that he had been licensed as an investigator from 1976 through 1978 by the State of Texas; and falsely represented that he had been employed as an investigator by the Conger Life Insurance Company.
Mr. Libby does not contest that the facts alleged are sufficient, standing alone, to justify the revocation of all of his licenses. He contends that the complaint was deficient because it did not expressly recite that the penalty sought was the revocation of all five licenses. The amended administrative complaint alleged that Mr. Libby held all five of the licenses described...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dept. of Children and Families v. Morman
...of the nature of the charge, thereby allowing her to mount a meaningful defense, as required under the law. Libby v. Department of State, 685 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Seminole County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Long, 422 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 431 So.2d 989 (......
-
PARROT HEADS v. DEPT. OF BUS. & PROF. REG.
...penalty, nor is there substantial competent evidence in the record of such a violation. See generally Libby Investigations v. Department of State, 685 So.2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The final order is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions that the Division impose a penalty based ......