CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 26991
...dministrative complaint. The emergency order of suspension charges that the petitioner failed to report gratuities and conspired to commit a fraudulent act in connection with racing, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-1.002(18) and section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes (1993)....
...He cautioned the men to be careful, because the drug is illegal. The order charges that each conversation constituted a separate conspiracy to commit a fraudulent practice in relation to racing, in violation of rule 61D-1.002(18), Florida Administrative Code, and that Witmer additionally conspired to violate section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, which prohibits conspiracy to alter the outcome of a horserace through the administration of drugs....
...First, he argues that the complaint/order fails to specifically allege that he ever offered to administer Clenbutoral to a race horse for the purpose of affecting the outcome of a race. The Department charges that the offer to administer the drug violated section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-1.002(18). Both require that the allegedly prohibited behavior involve racing or a race animal. Section 550.235(2) requires that the conspiracy be directed toward affecting the outcome of a race and that the attempted administration of medication be to a race animal: Any person who attempts to affect the outcome of a horserace or dograce throug...
...Because the Department has not alleged agreement, at most the complaint/order charges solicitation, which is defined as the enticement or encouragement of another to commit a crime, even if the other has no intention to follow through. State v. Johnson,
561 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). But neither section
550.235 nor rule 61D-1.002(18) prohibits the act of soliciting a crime or violation, only the commission of the substantive offense and/or conspiracy to commit the offense....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 655766
...The appellant, Paul Plante, D.V.M., appeals from a final order of the Department of Business and Professional regulation suspending his Pari-Mutuel Wagering Occupational License and imposing a $2,000 fine. The agency found that Plante had violated *887 section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida Administrative Code Regulation 61D-1.002(18), which implemented section 550.235(2)....
...The concoction was administered to the horse by means of a dose syringe. The horse receiving the milkshake did not win the race and actually ran two seconds slower than in his previous race in which he did not receive a milkshake. The Department suspended Plante's license finding he violated section 550.235(2). Section 550.235(2) provides: Any person who attempts to affect the outcome of a horserace or dograce through administration of medication or drugs to a race animal as prohibited by law; who administers any medication or drugs prohibited by law to a r...
...ting the outcome of a horserace or dograce; or who conspires to administer or to attempt to administer such medication or drugs is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s.
775.083, or s.
775.084. Complementing section
550.235(2) is section
550.2415(9)(a) which reads: Under no circumstances may any medication be administered within 24 hours before the officially scheduled post time of the race except as provided in this section. Plante argues that sections
550.235(2) and
550.2415(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) are unconstitutionally vague in that they do not define the terms "medication" or "drugs"....
...ubstance beyond normal levels. Conspiracy does not require proof that the offense was successfully completed. State v. Brea,
545 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). While we affirm the agency's finding of a statutory violation and the constitutionality of section
550.235(2), we reverse the agency's finding of a violation of rule 61D-1.002(18) as the Department concedes that the rule was previously found to be unconstitutional by this court. See Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering,
662 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon Plante which was based upon a finding of violations of both section
550.235(2) and rule 61D-1.002(18) must also be reversed and remanded....
