circuit10 Specialist

Well it seems that that a certain specialist in c-10 let a sex offender work at a subway where he was alone at all hours with minor employees! This came to light only after a young girl who was 15 at the time claimed that this guy touched her. Oh and this is the same specialist who let a sex offender leave the office with an active warrant because it was to late to wait for a deputy.

[Merlin]

Well it seems that that a certain specialist in c-10 let a sex offender work at a subway where he was alone at all hours with minor employees! This came to light only after a young girl who was 15 at the time claimed that this guy touched her. Oh and this is the same specialist who let a sex offender leave the office with an active warrant because it was to late to wait for a deputy.

It would be a cold day in hell before I ever let any of my sex offenders work at a fast food place. What is management doing about this case? Let's hope this person isn't supervising sex offenders anymore. How does idiotic stuff like this get passed the audits? I don't get it....this is a no brainer. Which part about no contact or working where children regularly congregate does the PO and or the offender not understand?

Teen Sues Over Sex Offender Boss

POSTED: 10:58 pm EDT July 5, 2006
UPDATED: 12:16 pm EDT July 6, 2006

A Central Florida teen has accused her former employer of negligent hiring after she was allegedly touched inappropriately by a manager who she later found out was a convicted sex offender.

Rachel Stephenson said she should have been told her boss, Adam Lee Hollis, 27, was a sexual offender when she worked at a Subway restaurant in Winter Haven, Fla., Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld said.

"I found out he was a sexual predator a couple of days after he had touched me," Stephenson said.

Stephenson has charged the store owners, PCMD Management of Maitland, Fla., with negligent hiring and violation of the Florida Whistleblowers Act, Holfeld said.

"I got fired basically because I reported a sexual predator, who was harassing me at work," Stephenson said.

Local 6 News has learned that Hollis spent time in prison for transmitting sexual performances of young female children on the Internet.

Records showed that he admitted being sexually attracted to female girls as young as 5 years old, Holfeld said.

"(He's) a 27-year-old ex-con whose twisted past has suddenly become the cornerstone of a lawsuit involving a teenage girl and civil rights," Holfeld said.

Hollis was recently released on probation but was banned from being alone with any minor.

The report said Stephenson was 16 years old when she started working with Hollis at the Subway restaurant.

She recalled working alone with him on at least 24 occasions which would have been a direct violation of his probation.

"Well certainly, my first thought is what did the company know and when did they know it," attorney Travis Hollifield said.

Local 6 News also reported that Hollis works near several establishments with children; two day care centers, a karate school and a movie theatre.

Holfeld said under current Florida law, a company must obtain a criminal background check to establish presumption against negligent hiring.

"What the law doesn't do is that it doesn't protect the employees who do not know who they are working with and what kind of potential dangers that person may pose because of their past," Hollifield said.

State Rep. Sheri McInvale is already reviewing existing law to develop some sort of protection for minors in the workplace, Local 6 News reported.


Attorneys for Hollis and the company declined comment because the case is pending.

"We checked policy with several corporate franchises, including Subway, Taco Bell, and Burger King," Holfeld said. "To a company, they require background checks. They can only recommend them to independent owners. We are already getting calls of this happening at other restaurants."

[Darth Duck]

Merlin, you are pretty quick to hang an officer. Aren't we doing what everyone always complains about? I would want the full facts of the case before I fired the guy even if he is 8up. The case notes are interesting though. Maybe you know something I don't but let's give the officer the benefit of the doubt before we fire the whole chain of command.

[Merlin]

Aren't we doing what everyone always complains about?

Don't know exactly what you are refering to as far as what everyone complains about. I'm keeping an open mind though. Maybe this guy had a court order allowing him to work in fast food, ya think? Did you see anything in the case notes about this? I didn't, but anything's possible. Let's hope if he does have a court order allowing him to work there DOC came on record to object. I won't even comment on the case notes.....but it looks really silly allowing a sex offender to work where minors regularly work.....sorry if it sounds like I'm hanging the PO because maybe the Judge allowed this and the PO is simply stuck with the mess....been there done that as well.

Aren't we doing what everyone always complains about?

Don't know exactly what you are refering to as far as what everyone complains about. I'm keeping an open mind though. Maybe this guy had a court order allowing him to work in fast food, ya think? Did you see anything in the case notes about this? I didn't, but anything's possible. Let's hope if he does have a court order allowing him to work there DOC came on record to object. I won't even comment on the case notes.....but it looks really silly allowing a sex offender to work where minors regularly work.....sorry if it sounds like I'm hanging the PO because maybe the Judge allowed this and the PO is simply stuck with the mess....been there done that as well.

No but it does appear the PO is justifying the sex offender's actions. By reading the case notes, it sounded like the offender should have been citizen of the month a few times over the past couple of weeks. Come on! Teen Challenge?? Universal Studios?? Disney?? What was this PO thinking when he allowed the SO to go to these places. Hell, if he was allowed to go to theme parks and work at a local mall food court, why would he not think it was okay to be around a minor at work?

A Summons??? This should have been a warrantless arrest under the Zero Tolerance policy! The CPS and CPSS should have known better. It wasn't like the case was staffed with a supervisor.

I'm glad I have an ultra conservative sup to discuss supervision issues with good advise.

If this officer didn't have a poor track record in the past I probably would give him the benefit of the doubt. I was told just this evening that recently this officer had an active warrant on a sex offender and when the offender came to report he called the SO. At 5 pm the SO had not arrived and the officer wanted to go home so he told the offender to leave the office.

Now the same officer allows a sex offender to work at a subway as an assistant manager. Everyone knows that subway hires teens and lot's of them especially during the summer months. How many times you waked into a subway and seen just 2 employees working? Alot!

No I am sorry to say that this officer messed this up. Now you have another victim and maybe more. How long had this guy worked there? How did the officer verify employment?

What if the offender is telling the officer he is not working alone on shift with minors and the times the officer checks there that is the case? If the order says no unsupervised contact does that mean the Probation Officer tells him he cant work anywhere that a minor can be hired which is almost any service job which are the only ones they can get usually. I bet I could check all your caseloads and find at least 1 sex offender working at a job that has a minor employed there and your person just doesnt happen to be the one caught up in this trouble. Dont throw stones in a glass house or I will look at all the OT36's in Circuit 10 and point it out to you hypocrites.

I am a former polk county officer that served time in the armpit of central florida. I was there the evening this officer let a sex offender leave the office with an active warrant. He notified me that the Lakeland Police Dept. was contacted that evening to respond to the office to serve the active arrest warrant. I was working the late CC evening at the front lobby and totally forgot about him notifying me of this..(busy taking cc schedules)..well about 1 hour went by and an Polk County Deputy Sheriff walked into the lobby, I buzzed him back and we went looking in the office for the offender and the officer....well, we never found the officer or the offender......he did not have time to stick around for LE to arrive that evening. and now this slip-up.....GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!.......Glad I'm out of C-10's torment of misery!!!..God Bless my friends of that circuit!!!!

What if the offender is telling the officer he is not working alone on shift with minors and the times the officer checks there that is the case? If the order says no unsupervised contact does that mean the Probation Officer tells him he cant work anywhere that a minor can be hired which is almost any service job which are the only ones they can get usually. I bet I could check all your caseloads and find at least 1 sex offender working at a job that has a minor employed there and your person just doesnt happen to be the one caught up in this trouble. Dont throw stones in a glass house or I will look at all the OT36's in Circuit 10 and point it out to you hypocrites.

In c10, "No unsupervised contact with minors" means NO contact with minors. Has this changed recently? I don't think so.

I am a former polk county officer that served time in the armpit of central florida. I was there the evening this officer let a sex offender leave the office with an active warrant. He notified me that the Lakeland Police Dept. was contacted that evening to respond to the office to serve the active arrest warrant. I was working the late CC evening at the front lobby and totally forgot about him notifying me of this..(busy taking cc schedules)..well about 1 hour went by and an Polk County Deputy Sheriff walked into the lobby, I buzzed him back and we went looking in the office for the offender and the officer....well, we never found the officer or the offender......he did not have time to stick around for LE to arrive that evening. and now this slip-up.....GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!.......Glad I'm out of C-10's torment of misery!!!..God Bless my friends of that circuit!!!!

that is a legit issue if that happened, but I want all these Specialists to tell me all there sex offenders work at a place that has never hired a minor or that they call the owner every 2 weeks to verify that in fact a minor hasnt been hired in that time by them. My guess is they ask when doing their EV's and they ask their offenders who might be lying like this guy did. Things can happen when the offender is untruthful, you won't call every day to verify that a minor hasn't been hired.

What if the offender is telling the officer he is not working alone on shift with minors and the times the officer checks there that is the case? If the order says no unsupervised contact does that mean the Probation Officer tells him he cant work anywhere that a minor can be hired which is almost any service job which are the only ones they can get usually. I bet I could check all your caseloads and find at least 1 sex offender working at a job that has a minor employed there and your person just doesnt happen to be the one caught up in this trouble. Dont throw stones in a glass house or I will look at all the OT36's in Circuit 10 and point it out to you hypocrites.

In c10, "No unsupervised contact with minors" means NO contact with minors. Has this changed recently? I don't think so.

Offenders lie .....I will repeat again I lay money I can look at the OT36's and point out companies that have hired minors now or in the past that sex offenders are working for.

JOHN WILLIAMSON, CIRCUIT ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT HAVE ANY TRACK RECORD AT ALL PROTECTING THE CHILDREN OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA..........WHY WOULD HIS OFFICERS CARE?

You missed the point. We know that sex offedners may be working in a job that they come into contact with minors, this is called incidental contact. The problem with this guy is he worked alone with a minor and often late at night. It was like putting bait out in front of a predator lion. The officer should have stipulated that the sex offender not work alone at any time with a minor if allowed to keep this job. Why did the officers supervisor not ok or push for the arrest of the offender once this all came to light? This girl filed an affidavit with local authorites and that should have been enough to arrest the guy. This garbage of doing a vop on money and requesting a summons is so far out there it's laughable.

You missed the point. We know that sex offedners may be working in a job that they come into contact with minors, this is called incidental contact. The problem with this guy is he worked alone with a minor and often late at night. It was like putting bait out in front of a predator lion. The officer should have stipulated that the sex offender not work alone at any time with a minor if allowed to keep this job. Why did the officers supervisor not ok or push for the arrest of the offender once this all came to light? This girl filed an affidavit with local authorites and that should have been enough to arrest the guy. This garbage of doing a vop on money and requesting a summons is so far out there it's laughable.

Glad you brought this up. I was wondering if circuit ten ever heard of a warrantless arrest.

As far as jobs for sex offenders go, this is how I see it. Use common sense. There was none in this case, plain and simple unless he had a court order from the judge allowing him to work where minors are regularly working. Sure any sex offender can have incidental contact anywhere at any time.....but to purposely sabatoge a sex offender by letting him work at a company that hires a lot of minors is not the kind of supervision we need to protect our children. Don't officers learn from mistakes? What about the Chik-Fil-A Mall predator that molested an employee? Baynews9 was all over than one......at least they gave the PO credit because he was trying to force the predator to quit his job...bad bad PO for trying to prevent a sexual offense. :roll:

You missed the point. We know that sex offedners may be working in a job that they come into contact with minors, this is called incidental contact. The problem with this guy is he worked alone with a minor and often late at night. It was like putting bait out in front of a predator lion. The officer should have stipulated that the sex offender not work alone at any time with a minor if allowed to keep this job. Why did the officers supervisor not ok or push for the arrest of the offender once this all came to light? This girl filed an affidavit with local authorites and that should have been enough to arrest the guy. This garbage of doing a vop on money and requesting a summons is so far out there it's laughable.

Glad you brought this up. I was wondering if circuit ten ever heard of a warrantless arrest.

As far as jobs for sex offenders go, this is how I see it. Use common sense. There was none in this case, plain and simple unless he had a court order from the judge allowing him to work where minors are regularly working. Sure any sex offender can have incidental contact anywhere at any time.....but to purposely sabatoge a sex offender by letting him work at a company that hires a lot of minors is not the kind of supervision we need to protect our children. Don't officers learn from mistakes? What about the Chik-Fil-A Mall predator that molested an employee? Baynews9 was all over than one......at least they gave the PO credit because he was trying to force the predator to quit his job...bad bad PO for trying to prevent a sexual offense. :roll:

it seems the po in c10 was taking the offender's side of things, or at least the field notes suggest he did.

again, why allow an offender to attend christmas party at Universal Studios or go to Disney property? the post indicating the circuit's position of no contact with minors tends to tell the offender no. from mu understanding the circuit's interpretation of the condition is 4 or 5 years old. it's not a a policy originating after i left the circuit.

Aren't we doing what everyone always complains about?

Don't know exactly what you are refering to as far as what everyone complains about. I'm keeping an open mind though. Maybe this guy had a court order allowing him to work in fast food, ya think? Did you see anything in the case notes about this? I didn't, but anything's possible. Let's hope if he does have a court order allowing him to work there DOC came on record to object. I won't even comment on the case notes.....but it looks really silly allowing a sex offender to work where minors regularly work.....sorry if it sounds like I'm hanging the PO because maybe the Judge allowed this and the PO is simply stuck with the mess....been there done that as well.

No but it does appear the PO is justifying the sex offender's actions. By reading the case notes, it sounded like the offender should have been citizen of the month a few times over the past couple of weeks. Come on! Teen Challenge?? Universal Studios?? Disney?? What was this PO thinking when he allowed the SO to go to these places. Hell, if he was allowed to go to theme parks and work at a local mall food court, why would he not think it was okay to be around a minor at work?

A Summons??? This should have been a warrantless arrest under the Zero Tolerance policy! The CPS and CPSS should have known better. It wasn't like the case was staffed with a supervisor.

I'm glad I have an ultra conservative sup to discuss supervision issues with good advise.

I have awesome supervisors in my office too. Sex offenders, new victims, malls, food courts and fast food joints all boil down to one thing....a PC arrest on the spot. There's nothing to discuss. I can't get over all the hesitation in this case. Why don't they flip a coin next time?.....heads the PO types a warrant and tails he summons the defendant. :roll:

You missed the point. We know that sex offedners may be working in a job that they come into contact with minors, this is called incidental contact. The problem with this guy is he worked alone with a minor and often late at night. It was like putting bait out in front of a predator lion. The officer should have stipulated that the sex offender not work alone at any time with a minor if allowed to keep this job. Why did the officers supervisor not ok or push for the arrest of the offender once this all came to light? This girl filed an affidavit with local authorites and that should have been enough to arrest the guy. This garbage of doing a vop on money and requesting a summons is so far out there it's laughable.

Glad you brought this up. I was wondering if circuit ten ever heard of a warrantless arrest.

As far as jobs for sex offenders go, this is how I see it. Use common sense. There was none in this case, plain and simple unless he had a court order from the judge allowing him to work where minors are regularly working. Sure any sex offender can have incidental contact anywhere at any time.....but to purposely sabatoge a sex offender by letting him work at a company that hires a lot of minors is not the kind of supervision we need to protect our children. Don't officers learn from mistakes? What about the Chik-Fil-A Mall predator that molested an employee? Baynews9 was all over than one......at least they gave the PO credit because he was trying to force the predator to quit his job...bad bad PO for trying to prevent a sexual offense. :roll:

it seems the po in c10 was taking the offender's side of things, or at least the field notes suggest he did.

again, why allow an offender to attend christmas party at Universal Studios or go to Disney property? the post indicating the circuit's position of no contact with minors tends to tell the offender no. from mu understanding the circuit's interpretation of the condition is 4 or 5 years old. it's not a a policy originating after i left the circuit.

But it's about doing your job, not whether the PO takes sides. It's called being professional. Either his orders stipulated he could not work around children or they didn't. Now which is it? I don't want to hear about the PO's opinion. Look at the facts. Do fast food places hire a lot of minors? Yes they do. How much thought/staffing is required on a case like this? C10 is scaring me.

What if the offender is telling the officer he is not working alone on shift with minors and the times the officer checks there that is the case? If the order says no unsupervised contact does that mean the Probation Officer tells him he cant work anywhere that a minor can be hired which is almost any service job which are the only ones they can get usually. I bet I could check all your caseloads and find at least 1 sex offender working at a job that has a minor employed there and your person just doesnt happen to be the one caught up in this trouble. Dont throw stones in a glass house or I will look at all the OT36's in Circuit 10 and point it out to you hypocrites.

Interesting perspective. Do you let offenders who've been convicted of drug and alcohol charges work at a bar if they promise not to take a sip? Sure they could smoke pot or drink a beer at any job site, but would you let him work where there's alcohol all over the place every single day?

From the article


She recalled working alone with him on at least 24 occasions which would have been a direct violation of his probation.

"Well certainly, my first thought is what did the company know and when did they know it," attorney Travis Hollifield said.


Huh? Did you guys pick up on this? My first thought would not have been about the company.....I would have been wondering how fast I could type up an affidavit with at least 24 allegations after a PC arrest. Summons my butt.

[mystikwarrior]

Absent a court order saying he could work there alone with minors, he should not have been allowed to hold the job.
This is a touchy one. Zero tolerance and strict enforcement of all rules and conditions would have prevented this. On the other hand if we return to granting the PO some discretion things like this will happen.
I've got some nagging doubts about this alleged 'touch' incident and just what it involved. But the fact is the offender should not have been there if there was no court order. Regardless of whether we have zero tolerance or PO discretion, common sense says you don't put a sex offender who just got out of prison in a situation like this.

No excuse! This officer has 23 active cases to supervise and thats ALL!!!!!!!!

You missed the point. We know that sex offedners may be working in a job that they come into contact with minors, this is called incidental contact. The problem with this guy is he worked alone with a minor and often late at night. It was like putting bait out in front of a predator lion. The officer should have stipulated that the sex offender not work alone at any time with a minor if allowed to keep this job. Why did the officers supervisor not ok or push for the arrest of the offender once this all came to light? This girl filed an affidavit with local authorites and that should have been enough to arrest the guy. This garbage of doing a vop on money and requesting a summons is so far out there it's laughable.

My point was the owner (mgr) probably told the PO that he wasnt working with minors on his shift and I am sure the Offender said the same thing and if the Officer didnt see them working together, what else does he have to go by unless DOC starts putting cameras on the sex offenders also. Almost any officer can be second guessed on anything with these sex offenders. If DOC doesnt want them working at any food place no matter what they should put it in policy instead of trying to hang people out after an incident, but then something will probably happen with a 17 yr. old office person at a wharehouse where a sex offender works. Where does it end - the second guessing. Blame everyone but the offender is DOC's current policy it seems.

let's remember this officer works in a specialized sex offender office--THE DELTA FORCE they call themselves--formulated out of Williamson's head--he was hoping to be the next RA--little good that did him---yes, the Delta Force decided we now can issued summons for vop's--oh, and we can speak to the media--when you are above the rest rules don't apply to you.

let's remember this officer works in a specialized sex offender office--THE DELTA FORCE they call themselves--formulated out of Williamson's head--he was hoping to be the next RA--little good that did him---yes, the Delta Force decided we now can issued summons for vop's--oh, and we can speak to the media--when you are above the rest rules don't apply to you.

Isn't that where Batman works? That guy has more bells and whistles on his utility belt than any Cop I have ever seen. :lol:

let's remember this officer works in a specialized sex offender office--THE DELTA FORCE they call themselves--formulated out of Williamson's head--he was hoping to be the next RA--little good that did him---yes, the Delta Force decided we now can issued summons for vop's--oh, and we can speak to the media--when you are above the rest rules don't apply to you.

If all the specialists work in the same office in c10 then why wasn't this caught? Not one specialist had enough sense to tell the officer or the supervisor that sex offenders shouldn't work around minors? I'm thinking it's time to dismantlle DELTA FORCE....time for some fresh blood. In my office we have awesome supers and 3 specialists. We work together, talk about our cases, we aren't afraid to disagree with each other, yes we make mistakes...but the big stuff tends to get taken care of when you work as a team.

You missed the point. We know that sex offedners may be working in a job that they come into contact with minors, this is called incidental contact. The problem with this guy is he worked alone with a minor and often late at night. It was like putting bait out in front of a predator lion. The officer should have stipulated that the sex offender not work alone at any time with a minor if allowed to keep this job. Why did the officers supervisor not ok or push for the arrest of the offender once this all came to light? This girl filed an affidavit with local authorites and that should have been enough to arrest the guy. This garbage of doing a vop on money and requesting a summons is so far out there it's laughable.

Glad you brought this up. I was wondering if circuit ten ever heard of a warrantless arrest.

As far as jobs for sex offenders go, this is how I see it. Use common sense. There was none in this case, plain and simple unless he had a court order from the judge allowing him to work where minors are regularly working. Sure any sex offender can have incidental contact anywhere at any time.....but to purposely sabatoge a sex offender by letting him work at a company that hires a lot of minors is not the kind of supervision we need to protect our children. Don't officers learn from mistakes? What about the Chik-Fil-A Mall predator that molested an employee? Baynews9 was all over than one......at least they gave the PO credit because he was trying to force the predator to quit his job...bad bad PO for trying to prevent a sexual offense. :roll:

it seems the po in c10 was taking the offender's side of things, or at least the field notes suggest he did.

again, why allow an offender to attend christmas party at Universal Studios or go to Disney property? the post indicating the circuit's position of no contact with minors tends to tell the offender no. from mu understanding the circuit's interpretation of the condition is 4 or 5 years old. it's not a a policy originating after i left the circuit.

But it's about doing your job, not whether the PO takes sides. It's called being professional. Either his orders stipulated he could not work around children or they didn't. Now which is it? I don't want to hear about the PO's opinion. Look at the facts. Do fast food places hire a lot of minors? Yes they do. How much thought/staffing is required on a case like this? C10 is scaring me.

which is exactly the point i was attempting to make. it is not the po's job to take sides. nevertheless, the po's notes made the offender a candidate for sainthood.

let's remember this officer works in a specialized sex offender office--THE DELTA FORCE they call themselves--formulated out of Williamson's head--he was hoping to be the next RA--little good that did him---yes, the Delta Force decided we now can issued summons for vop's--oh, and we can speak to the media--when you are above the rest rules don't apply to you.

If all the specialists work in the same office in c10 then why wasn't this caught? Not one specialist had enough sense to tell the officer or the supervisor that sex offenders shouldn't work around minors? I'm thinking it's time to dismantlle DELTA FORCE....time for some fresh blood. In my office we have awesome supers and 3 specialists. We work together, talk about our cases, we aren't afraid to disagree with each other, yes we make mistakes...but the big stuff tends to get taken care of when you work as a team.

Let's get it straight: not ALL of the specialist in the circuit work in the DELTA FORCE office. There are 4 or 5 specialist working in other areas of the circuit.

I hope the po in this case doesn't get burned badly. I don't want anyone to lose their job. But it seems he has a track record for making mistakes that are highlights. I think that a demotion for him and his supervisor would be appropriate. I don't agree with zero tolerance but after 2 big mistakes and I'm talking about the warrant issue and this subway issue and then his history of allowing sex offenders to go to Disney and Universal Studios that some form of action must be taken.

let's remember this officer works in a specialized sex offender office--THE DELTA FORCE they call themselves--formulated out of Williamson's head--he was hoping to be the next RA--little good that did him---yes, the Delta Force decided we now can issued summons for vop's--oh, and we can speak to the media--when you are above the rest rules don't apply to you.

If all the specialists work in the same office in c10 then why wasn't this caught? Not one specialist had enough sense to tell the officer or the supervisor that sex offenders shouldn't work around minors? I'm thinking it's time to dismantlle DELTA FORCE....time for some fresh blood. In my office we have awesome supers and 3 specialists. We work together, talk about our cases, we aren't afraid to disagree with each other, yes we make mistakes...but the big stuff tends to get taken care of when you work as a team.

Let's get it straight: not ALL of the specialist in the circuit work in the DELTA FORCE office. There are 4 or 5 specialist working in other areas of the circuit.

I thought c10 was tuff on SO's. I know of a SO move to Highland but move back to my area because the po wouldnt allow the SO get married because kids were in the wedding. Thats a little to tuff.

I hope the po in this case doesn't get burned badly. I don't want anyone to lose their job. But it seems he has a track record for making mistakes that are highlights. I think that a demotion for him and his supervisor would be appropriate. I don't agree with zero tolerance but after 2 big mistakes and I'm talking about the warrant issue and this subway issue and then his history of allowing sex offenders to go to Disney and Universal Studios that some form of action must be taken.

With regards to the warrant issue - the Supervisor made that call based on the situation at the time it appears of sour grapes and possible false accusations ( I wouldnt have made that same call due to the current zero tolerance and question every decision mentality of DOC, that is for sure. ) but the point is the Supervisor made the decision not the Officer. And I dont agree with this keep looking until you can find something deal where you can write someone up for something 2 years ago when it had no bearing on the current situation.

I hope the po in this case doesn't get burned badly. I don't want anyone to lose their job. But it seems he has a track record for making mistakes that are highlights. I think that a demotion for him and his supervisor would be appropriate. I don't agree with zero tolerance but after 2 big mistakes and I'm talking about the warrant issue and this subway issue and then his history of allowing sex offenders to go to Disney and Universal Studios that some form of action must be taken.

With regards to the warrant issue - the Supervisor made that call based on the situation at the time it appears of sour grapes and possible false accusations ( I wouldnt have made that same call due to the current zero tolerance and question every decision mentality of DOC, that is for sure. ) but the point is the Supervisor made the decision not the Officer. And I dont agree with this keep looking until you can find something deal where you can write someone up for something 2 years ago when it had no bearing on the current situation.

not so fast snoopy. the officer in question has years of experience as a specialist, and i'm quite sure his supervisor value sthe officer's opinion. or, at the very least, the arrest should have been staffed with circuit. Besides, reading the case notes, it appears the supervisor valued the officer's opinion when the offender was approved to attend a function at an amusement park during the christmas hoildays. i would hope the officer bemoans his supervisory decisions in this case, and i pray he doesn't make illogical decisions in the future.

speaking as a specialist, if there is even a mere utterance that a sex offender molested or battered a minor, you arrest the offender and allow the court to make a determination of guilt or innocence. if the accuser lied, the offender can file suit against his accuser, and the state can pursue criminal charges if needed.

I remember the Delta Force, it was Williamson's idea of the elite team of cc officers and specialists.....I was one of the crew when that 10-6 office opended.......the office turned out to be a slave camp for PSI's, old burned-out specialists, and a mold infested office to boot!!!......good times, good times!!!!

Teen Sues Over Sex Offender Boss

POSTED: 10:58 pm EDT July 5, 2006
UPDATED: 12:16 pm EDT July 6, 2006

A Central Florida teen has accused her former employer of negligent hiring after she was allegedly touched inappropriately by a manager who she later found out was a convicted sex offender.

Rachel Stephenson said she should have been told her boss, Adam Lee Hollis, 27, was a sexual offender when she worked at a Subway restaurant in Winter Haven, Fla., Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld said.

"I found out he was a sexual predator a couple of days after he had touched me," Stephenson said.

Stephenson has charged the store owners, PCMD Management of Maitland, Fla., with negligent hiring and violation of the Florida Whistleblowers Act, Holfeld said.

"I got fired basically because I reported a sexual predator, who was harassing me at work," Stephenson said.

Local 6 News has learned that Hollis spent time in prison for transmitting sexual performances of young female children on the Internet.

Records showed that he admitted being sexually attracted to female girls as young as 5 years old, Holfeld said.

"(He's) a 27-year-old ex-con whose twisted past has suddenly become the cornerstone of a lawsuit involving a teenage girl and civil rights," Holfeld said.

Hollis was recently released on probation but was banned from being alone with any minor.

The report said Stephenson was 16 years old when she started working with Hollis at the Subway restaurant.

She recalled working alone with him on at least 24 occasions which would have been a direct violation of his probation.

"Well certainly, my first thought is what did the company know and when did they know it," attorney Travis Hollifield said.

Local 6 News also reported that Hollis works near several establishments with children; two day care centers, a karate school and a movie theatre.

Holfeld said under current Florida law, a company must obtain a criminal background check to establish presumption against negligent hiring.

"What the law doesn't do is that it doesn't protect the employees who do not know who they are working with and what kind of potential dangers that person may pose because of their past," Hollifield said.

State Rep. Sheri McInvale is already reviewing existing law to develop some sort of protection for minors in the workplace, Local 6 News reported.


Attorneys for Hollis and the company declined comment because the case is pending.

"We checked policy with several corporate franchises, including Subway, Taco Bell, and Burger King," Holfeld said. "To a company, they require background checks. They can only recommend them to independent owners. We are already getting calls of this happening at other restaurants."

I feel sorry for this girl. This never should have happened. Teens deserve more protection in the work force. How sad....sounds negligent no matter which way you look at it. There's plenty of blame to pass around.

GOOD RIDDANCE TO YOU AND YOUR SLACKJAWEDREDNECKREDASSREDHEAD BUDDY. THE ARMPIT IS MUCH BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE TWOS OF YOU. SO READY TO CRITICIZE - SO RELUCTANT TO WORK. DON'T CHOKE ON YOUR MANAZE SMMICHES.

Slim,

Read this, "they pay me no more, they pay me no less"......take this to your mom so she can read it to you. I dont speak polk county two tooth.