WILLIAM SHANE SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, 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.
William Shane Scott appealed the revocation of his security guard licenses by the Florida Division of Licensing for impersonating a law enforcement officer. The court reversed and remanded because the Division erred in denying Scott's repeated requests for a full evidentiary hearing before imposing discipline.
The Division erred in refusing Scott's request for a full hearing. Because Scott affirmatively denied the key allegation against him and complied with applicable administrative procedure rules, the Division was required by statute to provide an adequate opportunity for a formal administrative hearing before revoking his licenses.
[1] A licensee facing revocation or suspension of their license must be given an adequate opportunity to request a proceeding pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 120.569 an…
[2] A licensee's affirmative denial of substantive factual allegations in an administrative complaint creates a dispute requiring a formal evidentiary hearing.
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“Mr. Scott affirmatively denied the substantive factual allegations in the complaint. He claimed that he never impersonated an officer and thus squarely contradicted the key allegation against him.”
Establishes that Scott's denial of the core charge entitled him to a full hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott received an administrative complaint from the Division of Licensing charging him with impersonating a law enforcement officer and committing mis…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Formal Administrative Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
William Shane Scott appeals from an administrative order of the Division of Licensing, revoking his security guard licenses and imposing fines upon him for impersonating a law enforcement officer and otherwise committing misconduct in the practice of regulated activities. We reverse and remand for a full evidentiary hearing.
When Mr. Scott was informed by the Division’s administrative complaint of the charges against him, he filed a petition for hearing, which was dismissed by the Division with leave to amend because Mr. Scott allegedly failed to show how the intended disciplinary action would affect his substantial interests and failed to furnish the Division with sufficient specific facts to demonstrate that the proposed discipline was not appropriate. Mr. Scott thereafter made several other attempts to amend his petition in order to receive a formal hearing, but he was ultimately unsuccessful and received only an informal hearing at which he was unable to appear. Upon our review of the record and the applicable rules and statutes, we hold that the Division erred when it refused Mr. Scott’s request for a full hearing. Mr. Scott affirmatively denied the substantive factual allegations in the complaint. He claimed that he never impersonated an officer and thus squarely contradicted the key allegation against him.
Furthermore, the Division’s actions violated section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (2000), which prohibits the revocation or suspension of any license “unless the licensee has been given an adequate opportunity to request a proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57.” Mr. Scott’s request for a formal administrative hearing com plied with rule 28-107.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, which was the specific rule applicable in this licensing revocation case. The Division’s repeated denials of Mr Scott’s requests for a formal hearing before imposing the proposed discipline constituted an error that materially impaired the fairness of the subsequent proceedings.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions for the Division to hold a full evidentiary hearing on this matter. ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.