STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, ) DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ) AND TOBACCO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-2050
) GRAND SALOON TAVERN, INC., d/b/a ) INNER ROOM, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Consistent with Respondent's Request for Immediate Post-Suspension Hearing, dated June 11, 1984, subsequent to an Emergency Order of Suspension issued in this case by Petitioner, on June 8, 1984, hearing was held before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Cocoa, Florida, on June 14, 1984. The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's liquor license should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct by it outlined in the Notice to Show Cause.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Joe Teague Caruso, Esquire
505 North Orlando Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On June 8, 1984, a Notice to Show Cause was served on Respondent, along with an Emergency Order of Suspension. The Notice to Show Cause contained allegations of several instances of the sale or delivery of cocaine by employees of the license holders; the maintenance of a public nuisance on the premises; and the maintenance of the licensed premises as a place where controlled substances are kept or sold, in violation of various sections of Florida Statutes (1983), all of which are also violations of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1873). Thereafter, Respondent requested a hearing at which Petitioner introduced the testimony of Gloria Smith, an investigator with Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) and Terry Altman, a Special Agent with the U.S. Treasury Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (DATF) and presented Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 4. Respondent presented the testimony of William C. McDonald and David E. Schoch, both officers with the Cocoa Beach Police Department; Ken Carlin, the disc jockey at
the Respondent's licensed premises; Gary O. Greenwald, doorman and bouncer at the licensed premises; Linda Sue Phillips, Pamela J. Sandedge and Janice M. Decker, all dancers at the Respondent's bar; and Lamar L. Johnston, a co-owner of the licensed premises, and introduced Respondent's Exhibit A.
Petitioner's counsel has submitted a proposed Recommended Order which was considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the Petitioner's proposed findings, etc., are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, said proposed findings, etc., were deemed either irrelevant, immaterial or not otherwise supported by record evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause herein, Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 15-00028, Series 4-COP issued by Petitioner (DABT) to Respondent for the Inner Room located at 74 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida.
On the evening of April 24, 1984, Beverage Investigator Gloria Smith and Special Agent Terry Altman, both in an undercover capacity, entered Respondent's licensed premises and took a seat near the disc jockey's booth. Smith asked an employee of the bar, a dancer named Janice Decker, who used the stage name "Angel," whom she had met weeks previously and established a friendship with, if Angel could get her some cocaine. Angel agreed and made arrangements for some cocaine, which she told Smith and Altman would arrive in about a "half hour." Somewhat later, Angel came up to the two agents where they were sitting in the bar, told them the cocaine had arrived, and received a $100 bill from Smith. Smith saw Angel engage in an exchange between Angel and the courier known to Smith as "Tommy" after which Angel came back to the agents' table and delivered to them a match box and told them it contained cocaine in two half-gram packages. When Angel left the table, Smith opened the match box and observed it contained two clear plastic bags which both had a white powder in them subsequently properly identified as cocaine. She took one of the bags out of the match box to check it. In Altman's opinion, the disc jockey saw her do this but that individual denies having done so. He contends that, given her position in the booth, with the lights adjusted as they are, he cannot see the people sitting at the tables below him and he knows nothing of any sale of drugs by Angel to Smith.
Smith and Altman had gone into the Inner Room as a part of an ongoing investigation of several establishments to see if they could purchase drugs in them. Smith had met Angel at the Show Bar, another Cocoa Beach bar, in early March when Angel, who was working there at the time, did a personal dance for Agent Altman. After that, she made several purchases from Angel at the Show Bar using the cover story that she the, widow of an older man, who had been left a good income, and was now out looking for some "fun" with some younger man of whom Altman was supposed to be one. She said she wanted the cocaine for recreational use. The first time she want into the Inner Room she went in part to meet people and see the atmosphere of the place. On the first occasion, when she asked for Angel, Angel was not there.
Smith returned to the Inner Room on May 10, 1984, this time in the company of United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Eslingor and the two of them sat along the east wall of the lounge. On this occasion, she met Mr. Johnson, one of the owners who introduced her to the other owner, Mr. Crockett. The licensed premises is divided into three general areas--a
small lounge, a larger lounge, and a game room. The east wall, where Smith sat, is in the area near the disc jockey's booth. Smith spoke with Angel about Angel's inability to deliver the cocaine she had promised on a previous occasion and asked her if she knew of anyone else who might have any cocaine for sale.
When inquiry by Angel failed to reveal any available sources that evening, Smith gave Angel $100.00 for 1 gram of cocaine to be delivered the next night.
Just about that time, Smith observed another dancer, Danielle, going into the restroom and followed her in. She went after Danielle because, based on information she had received from a third dancer, Deosia, she thought Danielle might have some for sale. When she got into the restroom, Smith asked Danielle if she had any cocaine to which Danielle replied she had only a little in her personal stack, of which she could give Smith a "line." Danielle then poured some white powdery substance, subsequently identified as cocaine, from a plastic triangular bag into a cellophane cigarette wrapper and handed it to Smith. Smith does not recall if Danielle asked for payment, but when Smith handed her $5.00 and when asked if that was enough, Danielle replied, "That's what I usually get."
When Smith and Eslinger went back the following night, approximately 11:15 p.m., Angel, to whom Smith had given $100.00 the previous evening, told her that she had the cocaine Smith had asked for. She then delivered the substance, later identified as cocaine, and stated that she had taken a "line" for herself out of it. Smith agreed to that. Smith does not recall if the cocaine was delivered in a matchbook or in a folded $1.00 bill. In either case, however, consistent with her routine practice, upon delivery she checked the delivered substance out in the open by opening the package, tapping the enclosure on the table, and examining it, a procedure, he feels, that takes about 10 seconds. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, when she was in this lounge, she sat in an area off to the side of the bar which is visible from all other areas of the bar except the entrance. There are also other tables there as well.
On May 25, 1984, Smith, Altman and Eslinger went into the Inner Room, actually at about 12:15 a.m. on May 28. On this occasion, Angel told Smith she had gotten rid of the cocaine she had promised to get for Smith because she had fronted the money for it. However, she stated she would have her husband bring some more, and later the same evening came back to the table where Smith and the others were sitting, sat down with them, and handed Smith a folded $1.00 bill for which Smith gave her $100.00. From this $1.00 bill, Smith took a small plastic bag which contained a substance later identified as cocaine.
Not all cocaine sales ware arranged at the licensed premises, however. On June 4, 1984, Agent Smith phoned Angel at home and suggested that Angel get her some cocaine and deliver it at the Inner Room. She thereafter took $100.00 to Angel at her home and made the definite arrangements for the delivery of the cocaine at the licensed premises. When Smith, Altman, and Eslinger went to the Inner Room at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, Angel came over to them and delivered a cigarette package to Smith. After Angel left, Smith took a plastic bag from the cigarette pack and checked it on top of the table so that it could be seen by other patrons and Hank, the manager, was standing over near the disco booth talking with two men who appeared to be Cocoa Beach police officers.
Smith cannot say that her actions were seen by these people, but the package
contained what was later identified as cocaine. Smith was not arrested by these police officers even though they did not know she was an undercover agent. This leads to the conclusion that her "checking out" of the deliveries was not so open or notorious as, by Smith's own admission, had they seen what she was doing, they probably would have had cause to arrest her.
When Smith first bought cocaine from Angel in the Inner Room, she had already made two or three purchases from her at another bar in the area and it was always Smith who made the purchases. She also paid Angel to "dance" for her "boyfriend" Altman several times and for each "dance" paid Angel $3.00. Over the period of the investigation, including this establishment and others, she got to know Angel and liked her. In doing so, she built up Angel's trust in her which Angel contends was the only reason she sold Smith cocaine. Smith purchased from only Angel and Danielle at the Inner Room. There is no evidence of other drug sales by other employees to other agents nor does Smith have any personal knowledge of any drugs on the premises except for those forming the bases of the allegations here. Altman played the part of the hanger-on sponging off a rich lady consistent with Smith's cover story. He was introduced to one of the co-owners, Mr. Johnson, on one occasion but had no conversations with him or anyone else regarding drugs. He made no drug purchases because his DATF investigation related to firearms. Though he was in the Inner Room quite a few times with and without Smith, he never saw any independent opportunity to buy drugs except for Smith's buys and he has no personal knowledge of anyone other than Angel or Danielle who had drugs for sale or were dealing drugs there.
While in the Inner Room, Smith had several general conversations with owner Johnson during which she says she may have mentioned her "mid-life crisis" cover story. She denies any conversations with him, however, in which she tried to entice him into using drugs with her or when he said he did not use drugs or permit them on the premises. She does not recall them discussing what steps he took to keep drugs out. She did not notice any posted rules or notices regarding drugs. On each occasion Smith was in the Inner Room, either one or both of the owners were there in addition to a manager. She does not know what this latter individual's responsibilities were. There were also always men at the door but she does not knew what their function was other than to collect the entrance fee.
Angel, whose real name is Janice M. Decker, was employed at the Inner Room as a dancer. She had just returned there prior to April 24, 1984, after working at the Show Bar, another club in Cocoa Beach, for 9 months. Prior to that, she worked at the Inner Room for 3 1/2 years. When she was first hired, she was instructed by owners that their rules included no drugs, no alcohol, and no solicitation for prostitution on the premises and during the first 3 1/2 years she worked there, she never had any drugs or saw any there. She first met Agent Smith at the Show Bar in July 1983 and developed a friendship with her. Smith did not make any requests for cocaine until their fourth meeting. By this time, Angel had accepted Smith's cover story and thought she was a nice lady. They had talked of going shopping together and of going out to dinner with their respective man as couples. In fact, Smith gave Angel her home phone number, but whenever Smith would call Angel, she would say she was out of town.
Smith's first request for cocaine from Angel came at the Show Bar. Angel contends that even though she did not use cocaine and did not have any, because of her friendship for Smith and the fact that she felt sorry for her, she agreed to try to get some from someone. She found a source and whenever she
bought any for Smith, she would deliver all she got and keep more for herself. She also felt close enough to Smith to front the money for these purchases and each time Smith requested cocaine, the purchase details ware always secondary to social conversation and "girl talk."
When Angel quit the Show Bar and went back to the Inner Room, though she had fears about bringing drugs into the premises because she knew the owners' anti-drug policy, she did so because: (1) she knew her reputation there was as a "straight," and (2) she felt sorry for Smith and wanted to help her.
As a result, she deceived her employers. On several of the occasions alleged, Angel didn't want be deliver on the premises but Smith insisted she deliver there. Their agreement was to meet outside for the transfer on two occasions, but each time Smith was not there and since Angel had to go to work, she had to go inside and when Smith showed up deliver there. Aside from the sales to Smith, Angel contends she has never had any drugs inside the Inner Room, nor has she ever seen any other employee with it in their possession there. She got the cocaine from a supplier she knows as Terry who she would meet at McDonald's-- never her husband. When she would get cocaine for Smith, she would keep it in her work purse with her in the lounge and not in her street purse in her locker. Neither she nor her locker has ever been searched for drugs. In her opinion, the licensees run a legitimate operation. They are strict about people who break the rules and seem to know what is going on there. Either one or both owners are on the premises every night along with two security people.
This opinion is shared by other club employees like the dancers Angie and Danielle. Angie worked for the licensees for 11 months before they closed on June 8 and never saw any drug dealings or employees with drugs on the premises. Customers have asked her about drugs on various occasions but she always refused to get involved. When she was hired, she was advised that the club rules included no use or sale of drugs and called for the employee to be fired if this rule was violated. Danielle, who has worked there for 9 or 10 months, had the same understanding of the rules. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the posted rules and the owners have periodic meetings of the employees at which they are reminded of the rules regarding no alcohol, no drugs, no prostitution, and the need to report any infractions. She knew that a violation of those rules would result in termination.
Regarding the sale to Smith, Danielle admits the transfer, but contends she at first refused and gave Smith the cocaine only after Smith said it was for her boyfriend who needed it badly. She didn't ask Smith for any money, intending it to be a gift even though she had never met Smith before. After the transfer, Smith threw her $5.00 and left. She is concerned about her job even though she has not been told she was fired.
The disc jockey, Ken Carlin, who has worked at the Inner Room for 4 years, relates much the same story regarding the owners' efforts to keep drugs out as do the dancers. There are frequent meetings of all personnel regarding illegal activities and anyone caught involved in them is fired. Whereas the dancers disclaim any knowledge of any employees involved in drugs, Mr. Carlin, however, indicates at least one a month is fired. This must be for other reasons, however, because, according to him, he has seen drugs on the premises only once about a year ago and had fired the dancer who had them immediately. In addition to his job as disc jockey, his responsibilities also include policing the premises on a frequent basis and this includes inspecting the dancers' dressing room which he does about three times each night. When he does these inspections, he does not go into the house, however.
In addition to the owners, the managers and Carlin, all of whom exercise the responsibility to check the premises for drugs, Gary O. Greenwald, one of the doormen and bouncers, also patrols the inside for violations. He has bean briefed regarding certain known drug users or dealers who are barred from entering the club. He has also been instructed to throw anyone suspected of possessing drugs out and if anyone is caught with it, he is to hold that person and call the police. During the three months he has worked there, ha has not observed any drugs on the premises.
The Inner Room's reputation with at least a portion of the Cocoa Beach police force is high. William McDonald, who has been an officer for 11 years, has visited the licensed premises two or three times a week for 11 years and has never, at any time, seen any drug activity there. He has been called there by the owners several times (never for drugs) and has made some arrests for such offenses as drunk and disorderly, firearms, and assaults. In his opinion, none of the bars in the area are completely drug-free, but comparing this bar with others in the area, it is run better because the owners are more conscientious. Mr. Johnston has talked with him repeatedly about the effort made to keep drug activity out of the bar and considering the fact that the owners are not police, he feels they do a good job of it.
So, too, does David E. Schoch, also a Cocoa Beach Police Officer who has gone into the Inner Room three to four times a week on duty and at least one night a week off duty for the past several months. In all that time, he has never seen drugs on the premises except one time when he was called there on duty. By the time he arrived, one of the owners and the bouncer had the situation under control and had confiscated some cocaine. He finds this bar to be one of the better and safer bars in the area due to the preventive actions of the management. He is convinced it is one of the more drug-free bars in the area due primarily to these efforts and considers that, considering their lack of training, the owners do a good job of it.
Lamar L. Johnston has been a co-owner of the Inner Room with Jesse Crockett for 8 1/2 years. During that time, the bar has never been cited for any infractions of the beverage laws. He has what is to him a lot of money invested in this bar and to keep from losing it, he has worked hard and been through in indoctrinating his people on the no drug policy. He has published a list of employee rules which are made known to every employee at monthly meetings and are posted in the dancers' dressing room, behind the bar, and in the disc jockey booth. He keeps tabs not only on his employees but also on his clientele and if he sees someone in the bar who he knows to be involved in any type of illegal activity, he advises his bouncers to keep that person out. He personally patrols the bar on a regular basis each night and has his disc jockey, managers, 2 bouncers, and security men do the same. He requests the Police Department to come in on duty and has given off-duty policemen passes to come in without paying the admission charge. With the exception of the one occasion described by Officer McDonald, he has never seen any drugs in his club.
With regard be the personnel he hires, he keeps tabs on all dancers in the area including as far away as Orlando and Daytona Beach, by real and stage names, who have been arrested or fired for prostitution or drugs. If one of these apply for work, he will not hire them. However, he contends he cannot prevent an employee from breaking a rule if that person is bent on doing so.
All he can do is publicize the rules and warn his employees of the consequences
of breaking them. He checks the dressing room six times a night and, recognizing that thirty pairs of eyes are better than one, put into effect the rule relating to firing employees who have knowledge of but fail to report drug activity.
His bar is not brightly lighted because, in his experience, bar patrons do not like a brightly lighted bar. Because of that, he tries to patrol as much as possible. On top of that, his lounge caters to a higher element clientele such as engineers from Cape Kennedy Space Center, Administrators from Brevard Community College, and professional people. His bouncers are instructed to keep the lower element out and a dress code is enforced.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the proceedings.
In subparagraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Notice to Show Cause, Petitioner alleges that Angel, an employee of the Respondent, sold or delivered cocaine, a controlled substance, on the licensed promises, on the dates set out in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, which, it established, is also a violation of Section 561.29(1)(a) , Florida Statutes. In subparagraph 3, the same offense is alleged on one occasion, by a different employee, Danielle.
Cocaine is a controlled substance and its unlawful sale or delivery constitutes a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, as alleged. Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that a liquor license may be disciplined upon the showing of a:
violation by the licensee or his or its agents, officers, servants, or employees, on the licensed premises, or elsewhere while in the scope of employment, of any of the laws of this state or of the United States, or violation of any municipal or county regulation in regard to the hours of sale, service, or consumption of alcoholic bever- ages, or engaging in or permitting disorderly conduct on the licensed premises, or permitting another on the licensed premises to violate any of the laws of this state or of the United States, except that whether or not the licensee or his or its agents, officers, servants, or employees have been convicted in any criminal court of any violation as set forth in this paragraph shall not be considered in proceedings
before the division for suspension or revoca- tion of a license except as permitted by chapter 92 or the rules of evidence.
The testimony of Agent Smith, supported by that of Altman and Eslinger, and corroborated by the admissions of Angel made in her testimony at the hearing, is sufficient to support the allegations as they relate to her, in subparagraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Notice to Show Cause. At the time the sales were made, she was an employee of the Respondent and the sales alleged here were consummated on the licensed premises. The fact that Smith's investigative
tactic of ingratiating herself with Angel to gain her trust and her arranging for at least two of the deliveries to take place in the club as opposed to outside, may have disappointed Angel, these factors in no way compromise the investigation or defeat the conclusion that the violations occurred as alleged. Such factors go to the question of the quanrum of disciplinary action, not whether it lawfully may be imposed or not.
As to the allegation involving the transfer by Danielle, the question as to whether Danielle meant to make a gift or sale is immaterial. The crucial factor is whether a delivery took place or not; whether that delivery was by Respondent's employee or not; and whether the delivery took place on the licensed premises. The testimony by Smith and the corroboration by Danielle clearly establishes that the offense took place as alleged.
In paragraph 6 of the Notice to Show Cause, Petitioner alleges that during the period alleged and described in the Findings of Fact, supra, Respondent maintained a public nuisance on its licensed premises by maintaining it as a place used for keeping, selling and delivery of controlled substances, in violation of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes. If the nuisance is established and if it is of a nature which tends to annoy the community, to injure the health of the citizens in general, or to corrupt the public morals, it constitutes a misdemeanor in violation of Section 823.01, Florida Statutes.
Here, the evidence taken as a whole indicates that the licensed premises repeatedly served as the focus for the sale and delivery of cocaine, a controlled substance, by employees of the license holder. Consequently, a public nuisance has been established which tends to, at least, annoy the community and the two cited statutory violations have been established. So, also, has Section 561.29(1)(a), cited previously, and Section 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which permits discipline of a license if it is established that the license holder is maintaining a nuisance on the licensed premises.
The same evidence also clearly establishes that the violation alleged in paragraph 7 of the Notice to Show Cause has been established as well. The conduct described here is a violation of Section 893.13(2)(a)5, Florida Statutes, which makes it a misdemeanor of the first degree to keep a place which is used for the selling of controlled substances and, therefore, a violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
It having been established that the offenses took place and that the cited violations occurred, the question remains as to what, if anything, should be done about it. It is clear that the Petitioner has the authority to discipline a license holder when it finds that either the licensee or its agents have violated certain laws of the State on the licensed premises.
A showing of only one isolated violation, when combined with a showing that the licensee otherwise took pains to obey the law, would not normally support a revocation or, perhaps, even discipline. If, however, as here, the laws were repeatedly violated, there arises an inference that the violations were either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by the licensee, conditions precedent be disciplinary action. See Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1962); Lash, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Golden Dolphin #2 v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 403 So.2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); G & B of Jacksonville,
Inc. v. State, 371 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). A licensee has the obligation to maintain a sufficient intelligence with regard to his own establishment be know, at least generally, what his employees are doing, and his failure to do so constitutes a lack of reasonable diligence and a failure of proper management.
G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, supra.
Respondent, here, apparently owns a reasonably clean establishment. His evidence shows that he has rules regarding the sale or delivery of drugs and that these rules are published, posted, and made known to his employees on a repeated basis. He has threatened to fire employees who fail be report violations of these rules in an effort to reduce them. He and his employees patrol the club frequently in an effort to minimize or prohibit illegal activity. That these efforts are reasonably successful is witnessed by the testimony of the two Cocoa Beach police officers who indicate Respondent's club is the cleanest in town. None of this evidence was successfully contradicted by the Petitioner. Notwithstanding this, there is some discrepancy in the testimony regarding the checks of the dancers' dressing room and the restroom which raises a question as to how thorough Respondent's patrols are.
The fact remains that not one but two different dancer employees of the license holder had cocaine on the licensed premises and sold it there. That they may have been persuaded by Petitioner's agents to do so does not overcome the fact that they did so openly inside the premises.
Consequently, while the Respondent had the responsibility to properly supervise its establishment and clearly failed to do so here, and though the sales were multiple, it cannot be said that Respondent's negligence (no participation was alleged or established) justifies revocation under the circumstances of this case. See also Rex Allen Jones, t/a Happy Hour v. State, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Case No. AO-132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), opinion filed March 30, 1984.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., d/b/a Inner Room, pay a fine of $2,000.00
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1984.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Joe Teague Caruso, Esquire
505 North Orlando Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
Gary R. Rutledge Secretary
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 33301
James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing
Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32302
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 84-2050
GRAND SALOON TAVERN, INC. d/b/a INNER ROOM,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
COMES NOW the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, who, after due consideration of the entire record in the above-styled cause, enters this Final Order based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order of August 3, 1984, are hereby adopted, with the exception of the last sentence of paragraph 16, which is corrected to read: "When he does these inspections, he does not go into the lockers, however." (Tr. 99-109)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Order of August 3, 1984, are hereby adopted.
ORDER
The recommended penalty of a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby increased, based upon the following:
The testimony of Gloria Smith that two of Respondent's employees sold or delivered cocaine inside the licensed premises on five separate occasions.
The testimony of Gloria Smith, Janice Marie Decker, and Lamar Johnston that one of the two corporate officers of the licensee was present every night, (TR-52, 145 155), indicating that at least one of the officers was present on the nights in which the drug transactions occurred.
The conclusion of law in the Recommended Order that Respondent clearly failed to properly supervise its establishment. (p. 15)
Based upon the foregoing matters, it is
ORDERED that Respondent pay a civil penalty of $7,000.00 and that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 15-28, Series 4-COP, be suspended for a period of 30 days, beginning on the 10th day after service of this Final Order. Respondent shall be given credit on the period of suspension for the fourteen days it was closed under the Emergency Order of Suspension prior to obtaining a Stay of the Order from the 5th District Court of Appeal. Failure to pay the civil penalty within 30 days of the date of service of this order will result in an additional fifteen day suspension of license number 15-28, Series
4-COP.
DONE AND ORDERED this day of 1984.
(date unreadable on document filed)
HOWARD M. RASMUSSEN, DIRECTOR
Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
This Final Order may be appealed pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedures, within 30 days of the date of filing this Order by the Division Clerk.
Copies furnished:
Louise E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Joe Teague Caruso, Esquire
505 North Orlando Avenue Post Office Box 757 Glass Bank Building
Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
Arnold Pollock, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings
Oakland Building, 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 16, 1984 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 03, 1984 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 01, 1984 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 03, 1984 | Recommended Order | Licensee's lack of supervision of employees who sold cocaine on premises supports discipline but not revocation of license. |
