STEVEN ALBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Steven Albert sought review of the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission's denial of his certification as a correctional officer. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the Commission's denial, holding that the Commission improperly treated the question of "good moral character" as a legal conclusion rather than a factual question for the hearing officer to determine.
The court held that in the context of professional and occupational licensing, the question of what constitutes "good moral character" is ordinarily a question of fact for the trier of fact, not a conclusion of law. The Commission therefore acted beyond its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act in rejecting the hearing officer's factual finding that Albert demonstrated good moral character when no categorical statutory exclusion applied.
[1] The determination of "good moral character" for professional or occupational licensing is ordinarily a question of fact for the trier of fact.
[2] An administrative agency may not recharacterize a hearing officer's factual finding as a conclusion of law to overturn it, absent a specific statutory or rule-based categ…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In the context of professional and occupational licensing, the question of what constitutes "good moral character" has been held to be ordinarily a question of fact for the trier of fact.”
Establishes the legal principle that good moral character determinations are factual findings, not legal conclusions, in occupational licensing cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbert was hired by Dade County as a correctional officer and applied for certification with the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. A…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Steven Albert seeks review of the denial of his certification as a corree- tional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. We reverse.
Albert was hired by Dade County as a correctional officer and applied for certification by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After an initial denial of certification, an administrative hearing was held on the question of whether Albert satisfied the statutory requirement that he “[h]ave a good moral character as determined by a background investigation under procedures established by the Commission.” § 943.13(7), Fla.Stat. (1987). The hearing officer found that Albert had demonstrated good moral character and recommended certification. The hearing officer’s finding of good moral character was embodied both in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On review of the recommended order, the Commission did not disturb the hearing officer’s findings of fact. Instead the Commission treated the issue of good moral character as being a conclusion of law.1 It sustained the Department’s exceptions thereto, and denied certification. Albert has appealed.
In the context of professional and occupational licensing, the question of what constitutes “good moral character” has been held to be ordinarily a question of fact for the trier of fact. See Bachynsky v. State Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 471 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Village Zoo, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 450 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); White v. Beary, 237 So. 2d 263, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); see also Aquino v. Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 430 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Wash & Dry Vending Co. v. State Dep’t of Business Regulation, 429 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The result is otherwise, of course, where a specific provision of a statute or rule categorically excludes an applicant from consideration. See e.g., § 943.13(4), Fla.Stat. (1987)(excluding applicants who have certain felony or misdemeanor convictions);2 see also Cirnigliaro v. Florida Police Standards & Training Comm’n, 409 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In the present case Rule 11B-27.-011(2), Florida Administrative Code, did not establish a categorical exclusion which would automatically disqualify the applicant. As the applicant presented substantial competent evidence of good moral character and the factual findings of the hearing officer were otherwise supported by substantial competent evidence, the Commission acted beyond the latitude allowed by the Administrative Procedure Act and applicable decisional law in rejecting the application. See Orlando General Hosp. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 567 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990; Smith v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 555 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); B.B. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 542 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
We therefore reverse the final order and remand with directions to adopt the hearing officer’s recommended order. . The hearing officer had entered both a factual finding and conclusion of law on the point.
. That exclusion is not applicable here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palamara v. State, 855 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…s only required to consider certified copies of the judgments as evidence of character. We must, however, reverse for the ALJ to decide the question of good moral character. As the court explained in Albert v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 573 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991): In the context of professional and occupational licensing, the question of what constitutes “good moral character” has been held to be ordinarily a question of fact for the trier of fact. See Bachynsky v. State Dep’t of Professi…
-
Kauk v. Dep't OF Fin. Servs., 131 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…D. BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. * The determination of moral fitness to hold a license is typically an issue of fact subject to ordinary methods of proof. Albert v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm'n, 573 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also Yeoman v. Constr. Ind. Licensing Bd., 919 So. 2d 542, 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Palamara v. State, Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 855 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).…
-
Diaz v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't, 164 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…for the New York misdemeanor was not a disqualifying occurrence under section 943.13(4). In that event, the Commission would need to assess his moral fitness. See Albert v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm’n, 573 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
Authorities Cited
- Marlyn Smith v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 555 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Azalee Parker v. Claretha Murray & Metro. Dade Cnty., 429 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- B.B. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 542 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Isiah White v. Beary, 237 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- The Vill. ZOO, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 450 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Orlando Gen. Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 567 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Cirnigliaro v. Fla. Police Standards & Training Comm'n, 409 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Aquino v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. & Bd. of Real Est., 430 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Nicholas Bachynsky, M.D. v. State, 471 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)