STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2453
) PAPPAS ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a ) FOREMOST LIQUORS AND HIDEAWAY ) LOUNGE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was conducted on January 7, 1982, in the Ernest R. Graham Building, 1352 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. This Recommended Order is being entered after receipt of proposed facts and legal argument offered by counsel for the parties. The last of those installments was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 26, 1982. 1/
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Lane Abraham, Esquire
200 Southeast 1st Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33131
ISSUES
This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent.
Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981.
Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/
Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981.
Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981.
Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981.
Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981.
Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code.
Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder.
In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981.
Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint.
The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation.
The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes.
On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the
premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for
$5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises.
Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M.
On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.)
On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets.
Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night.
Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction.
On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981.
Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance.
At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll.
On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty.
On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00.
On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.)
On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises.
On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar.
When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine.
On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening.
At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for
$75.00.
In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00.
During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area.
Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store.
Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired.
Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation.
On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke.
(Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie
D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.)
During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises.
Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters.
Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics.
Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine.
At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises.
Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack.
Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises.
Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys.
Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Petitioner, through the Administrative Complaint, attempts to discipline the license of the Respondent based upon alleged acts of one Penny Reid. These activities are as set forth in Counts I and II.
Penny Reid was in fact involved in the possession and sell of controlled substances, namely methaqualone and lysergic acid diethylamid as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, and in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Neither George or Florrie Pappas, the recognized principals in law in this beverage license, nor Miguel Rodriguez, the individual whom they allowed to take over the licensed premises without permission from the Petitioner, were directly involved in any of these drug transactions by Penny Reid. Consequently, in order to establish any culpability on the part of the Respondent corporation, it is necessary to show that the management and ownership of the licensed premises are negligent or failed to use due diligence. See Woodbury v. State Beverage Department, 219 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). The proof to be offered must be in keeping with the standards set forth in G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 366 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Furthermore, a single isolated occurrence of a narcotics violation on the part of an agent, servant or employee is insufficient to establish culpability on the part of a respondent beverage license holder; however, at some point in time, a combination of acts in violation of criminal laws related to narcotics will cause a decision in law that the respondent licensee is lacking in reasonable diligence and management of the licensed premises and thereby accountable under Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for violations attributed to his agents, servants or employees. See G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, 371 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
An analysis of the activities of Penny Reid, in the face of the standards established before, standing alone, leads to the conclusion that the Respondent is not culpable for those activities, especially in view of the fact that some of the actual exchanges of contraband took place off premises. Nonetheless, when those activities by Penny Reid are considered in view of the similar violations which took place involving the employees, Eve Mae Carroll, Kathleen Keddie and Julie Murphy, dealing with the controlled substances as defined by Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, in particular, methaqualone and cocaine, involving possession and sale of those substances, and in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Respondent licensee is culpable within the meaning of Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. This determination is reached based upon a comprehensive consideration of Counts I and II, related to Penny Reid and Counts III, IV and VI, related to Carroll, Keddie and Murphy, respectively. In this instance, the recognized principals in the license have surrendered their control to Miguel Rodriguez and Miguel Rodriguez, notwithstanding his constant presence in the licensed premises during the time in question, and his ostensible efforts to protect against the appearance of controlled substances in the licensed premises, has failed to exercise the necessary diligence and is negligent and the Respondent has violated Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for the activities of its employees referred to in this discussion of law. See also Bach v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 378 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Count V to the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation by one "Orlando," purported agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, that violation being related to sell or delivery of a controlled substance, namely
cannabis, also referred to as marijuana, as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, and in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, thereby causing a violation on the part of the Respondent of Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is not guilty of this violation in view of the fact that "Orlando" was not an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent.
Count VII to the Administrative Complaint involves an allegation that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent kept or maintained a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, and that this offense violates Subsection 893.13(2)(a).5, Florida Statutes, within Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Subsection 893.13(2)(a).5, Florida Statutes, is a criminal law statute whose prohibition is against the keeping or maintenance of, among other places, stores resorted to by persons using controlled substances or which store is used for keeping or selling those controlled substances. Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes, is a substantive provision of the Beverage Law which prohibits the maintenance of a nuisance on the licensed premises.
In order to apply the reasoning of the criminal law violation set forth in the former provision of law, that provision must be read in pari materia with the Beverage Law language. It is the elements of the criminal law offense which constitute nuisance within the Beverage Law, if at all. Such a reading leads to the conclusion that the Pappases or more appropriately their de facto designee, by the keeping or maintaining of the licensed premises resorted to by those persons using controlled substances and allowing the licensed premises to be used for keeping or selling the controlled substances, through negligence and lack of diligence, violated Subsection 893.13(2)(a).5, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent violated Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Count VIII to the Administrative Complaint speaks in terms of violations by the Respondent premised upon alleged violations in the licensed premises of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, as related through Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. It is that aspect of Section 823.10 which prohibits the existence of a store which is used for the illegal keeping, selling or delivering of narcotics within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, which is subject to question. Such arrangement by that law is considered to be a public nuisance and the provision goes on to prohibit the keeping or maintenance of that nuisance or aiding and abetting another in maintaining the public nuisance.
The activities involving controlled substances which occurred at the licensed premises on the dates in question as condoned by negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the Pappases' putative successor in ownership, Miguel Rodriguez, are sufficient to show that a violation of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and thereby violation of Subsection 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by the Respondent has occurred.
Counts IX, X and XI involve the possession of marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, on the part of the employees of the Respondent, Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke, respectively. In view of the matters that had transpired prior to October 2, 1981, the violations of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, on the part of these employees were sufficient to cause a violation by the Respondent related
to Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, premised upon the Respondent's negligence and lack of due diligence in the operation of the licensed premises.
Count XII alleges that the Respondent, through corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents or servants, failed to file a sworn declaration of transfer of the voting stock of the corporate license, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. In this instance, the actual control and effective legal control of the voting stock was transferred from the Pappases to Miguel Rodriguez without filing the sworn declaration as to active control, in violation of that provision.
Count XIII charges the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, with the failure to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten
(10) days of that change, namely, the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, thereby violating Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. That violation has been established in this case.
Based upon a full consideration of the facts found herein, argument of counsel, and conclusions of law reached, it is
That a final order be entered which dismisses Count V of the Administrative Complaint; which revokes the subject beverage license for violations as established in the composite Counts, I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, X and XI; which revokes the subject beverage license for the violations established in Counts VII and VIII and which assesses a fine of $100.00 in combination for the violations as established in Counts XII and XIII to the Administrative Complaint, and which are set aside in view of the revocation of the license.
DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1981.
ENDNOTES
1/ The suggested facts and law offered by counsel have been reviewed prior to the entry of this Recommend Order. To the extent that those matters are consistent the Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that they are inconsistent with the Recommended Order they are hereby rejected.
2/ There had been an original allegation of the sale of lysergic acid diethylamid on September 9, 1981, as contained in Count II to the Administrative Complaint. The prosecution abandoned this feature of the Count at the commencement of the hearing, and no further consideration shall be given to this allegation.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business
Regulation
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Lane Abraham, Esquire
200 South East 1st Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33131
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 11, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 11, 1982 | Recommended Order | Respondent allowed drugs to be sold on the licensed premises and allowed them to be kept there. Revoke license and fine. |
