Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Upon “cause to suspect,” the WPBPD would be required to conduct an investigation. Logic would suggest it would consider the findings contained in the Final Order in reaching its conclusion as to whether Wills had failed to maintain “good moral character.” If the investigation concludes he did not maintain good moral character, Wills is subject to imposition of any of the penalties discussed above. Clearly, the modified findings contained in the FEC’s Final Order would provide a basis for future disciplinary proceedings against Wills. Consequently, although the Final Order dismissed the charges against him, he is adversely affected by the FEC’s modified findings, and has standing to institute this appeal. See Rabren v. Dep’t of Prof'l Reg., 568 So.2d 1283, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>); c.f., Bodenstab v. Dep’t of Prof'l Reg., Bd. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding pilot had standing to appeal final order even though charges were dismissed agencys statements in conclusions of law would be used against him as precedent in later proceeding or as evidence of incipient policy (B) holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt (C) holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed (D) holding that a plaintiff may bring a  1983 action alleging a violation of fifth and fourteenth amendment rights to be free from police coercion in pursuit of a confession even though statements were not used against him at trial (E) holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted
Output (English): holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt