STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION ) DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ) AND TOBACCO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 83-3406
) LUKE RANGE, d/b/a FLAME BAR ) AND LOUNGE )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
After notice to the parties, a hearing was held in this case before Arnold
Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Cocoa, Florida, on January 17, 1984. The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's 4-COP liquor license for the above establishment should be disciplined because of misconduct as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Frank J. Griffith, Jr., Esquire
605 South Palm Avenue Post Office Box 37 Titusville, Florida 32781
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On October 14, 1983, the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, by Notice to Show Cause, notified the Respondent in this case of his intent to discipline Respondent's 4-COP liquor license because of the misconduct alleged in the three subparagraphs of the said Notice to Show Cause.
Respondent's attorney notified the Director on August 29, 1983, of his intent to contest the allegations listed in the Notice to Show Cause and requested a formal hearing.
At the hearing, Petitioner called Jimmie E. Powell, Nicholas Blankenship, John W. Willingham, Michael L. Blubaugh, James M. Brown, Maria Lynne Scruggs, Paul A. Blackmon and Wesley Sampson, and presented Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2.
Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Willie A. Cooper, Oliver Smith, Nathaniel Hooks, Leon Collins, Robert Manning,
Richard Blake, Barbara L. Jenkins and Ricardo Davis, as well as Respondent's Exhibits A and Composite B.
RECOMMENDATION
That Respondent's license be suspended for ninety (90) days and that he pay a fine of $1,000.
RATIONALE FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Luke Range, d/b/a Flame Bar and Lounge, possessed a 4-COP alcoholic beverage License No. 15-96 for the Flame Bar and Lounge located at 355 Magnolia Street, Cocoa, Florida.
Respondent Range purchased the Flame Bar several years ago. At that time, it was known as the Central Bar and, according to community representatives, at the time of purchase, was an extremely bad operation. Since his purchase of the bar, Respondent has upgraded it and gotten rid of many of the problems that plagued it when it was known as the Central Bar. At that time, there were numerous assaults, gambling violations and other offenses frequently conducted on the premises. Several members of the Cocoa Police Department have responded to the Flame Bar for various reasons as a result of disturbance calls and for other similar reasons over the months leading up to the summer of 1983.
Many of these individuals, such as Nicholas Blankenship, were in the bar during the month of July, 1983, on several different occasions.
Blankenship, for example, entered several times during that month and, each time he entered, he saw people smoking what appeared to be marijuana and smelled what appeared to be the odor of burning marijuana. Though he saw this drug activity, and though he was on duty, he did not make any arrests for drug violations because, in his own terms, it would be "suicidal" for an officer to attempt to make an arrest either by himself or with only one other officer in attendance.
Blankenship reported what he had seen to Vice Squad Detectives Mike Blubaugh and Mike Brown.
This same situation was described by another Cocoa police officer, John Willingham, who also was in the Flame Bar on several occasions during July, 1983, and clearly saw individuals smoking what appeared to be marijuana or smelled the heavy odor of marijuana. He did not make any arrests, but did report the information he observed regarding drug abuse to the vice squad detectives or the chief of police. Willingham has received anonymous phone calls concerning the sale of narcotics outside the bar. However, when he would arrive there in a marked police vehicle, he would normally not find anyone engaged in that activity.
The two vice squad detectives, Blubaugh and Brown, also are familiar with the Flame Bar. In the course of their police work, on several occasions they have been notified of narcotics activity there and, when it was known as the Central Bar more than three years ago, it was known for its drug activity. In the summer of 1983, Blubaugh was given information that there were several drug dealers working both inside and outside the Flame Bar and, according to his information, it was known as a place where drug dealers hang out. He entered the Flame Bar several times during the summer of 1983 accompanied by different officers each time. To his knowledge, there is drug activity both outside the
bar and in or around the apartments and pool hall across the street from it. He has on different occasions seen and smelled marijuana in the bar. He has monitored a police officer who was wired for sound and in that exercise heard a sale of narcotics being accomplished there. He has made no arrests for narcotics violations in the bar, nor has he ever seen the Respondent in the bar when drug transactions were taking place.
Based on these complaints and others of a similar nature relating to other bars in the area, the chief of police for Cocoa, Florida, met with Jimmie
E. Powell, the District Supervisor for District XII, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (which includes Brevard County, Florida) at the Cocoa Police Department and asked for help in investigating narcotics violations in the black community in Cocoa. The Flame Bar was not singled out for specific investigation during this conversation.
Pursuant to this request, Maria L. Scruggs, a Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco agent, entered the Flame Bar at 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 1983. While she was there, she met an individual named Michael Jenkins, from whom she purchased $10 in drugs outside the bar. While inside, she saw what appeared to be widespread smoking of marijuana. She concluded this because of the smell and the method of cigarette rolling that she observed, and she also observed patrons snorting a white, powdered substance which they usually pulled out of tinfoil packets. In her estimation, there were on this occasion between
100 and 150 patrons in the building of whom the majority were engaged in some type of drug activity. On this occasion, she saw a maximum of three employees, two males, one female.
She came back to the Flame Bar on July 9 at 9:00 p.m. On this occasion, she met a black female named Gloria Jean, whom she told she wanted to buy cocaine. Gloria Jean introduced Scruggs to a black male named Reagan, from whom she purchased a white, powdered substance, subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. Reagan was not an employee of the bar, but, instead, a patron.
After that second buy, since her undercover identification was as a model, she asked Gloria Jean to meet the manager of the bar. This proved to be Willie Cooper, who identified himself to her as the manager and who introduced her to an individual named Sweet Jimmy. Scruggs asked this gentleman if he would sell her a 10-cent piece of cocaine (a 10-cent piece equates to $10, a 20- cent piece to $20, etc.). Sweet Jimmy indicated he did not have any 10-cent pieces, but would sell her a 25-cent piece. Scruggs had seen this individual make sales out of his sock, and she also bought $20 worth of the substance, which was subsequently identified as cocaine.
While Scruggs was sitting there, several black males came up and talked with her. While doing so, they engaged in several sales of what appeared to her to be narcotics to other individuals right at the table where she was sitting with Sweet Jimmy. It was her impression that night (July 9) that besides dancing, the general activity of the people in the Flame Bar was either dealing in or using narcotics.
On July 15, 1983, Scruggs again entered the bar in the company of Paul Blackmon at 9:30 P.M.. She introduced Blackmon to Cooper as her boyfriend. At this time, she engaged Cooper in a discussion regarding the fashion shows which she, as a "model," desired to bring into the bar. These discussions took place in what Cooper described as his office and, during the conversations, the issue came up regarding the use of narcotics.
Scruggs told Cooper she was concerned about bringing a fashion show into the bar because she was afraid of a raid. Cooper told her at this time not to worry, that the police had a deaf ear to any narcotic activity there. She asked Cooper if cocaine was available, and he said it was. At this point, Blackmon and Scruggs went over to the bar and, shortly thereafter, Cooper came up to Blackmon and gave him a package for which Blackmon paid Cooper some money. Cooper put this money into his pocket and then went back to tending bar. The substance received from Cooper by Blackmon that night was subsequently tested by the laboratory at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and determined to be cocaine.
Scruggs and Blackmon came back again the following night, July 16, at approximately 8:55 P.M.. When they entered, they saw patrons snorting what appeared to be cocaine and smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Upon entering, they went directly to the bar, where Blackmon talked with a black male named Gillaman, who was the relief bartender. On this occasion, Cooper was not present when Scruggs and Blackmon entered, but did come in within a few minutes thereafter. Blackmon asked Cooper if he could get any coke like he had gotten the night before. Cooper immediately left the area and shortly thereafter came back with a tinfoil package for which he got money from Blackmon. This substance was also subsequently identified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as cocaine.
Scruggs had met Respondent at another club during this period and states she had talked to him at the bar about the modeling shows mentioned previously. Respondent advised her she would have to talk to Mr. O. P. Smith about it, giving her Smith's phone number to contact him. The one call she made, however, did not get through. During the conversation she had with Respondent, she used her undercover name of Cynthia. Respondent denies that the conversation with Scruggs ever took place, further denying that he has ever met her. The equipoise of this situation is somewhat abated, however, when one considers the probability of the evidence. It is unlikely that Scruggs would make up a story as detailed and as complex as she has. On the other hand, it is quite likely that Respondent would not recall a particular conversation of several months previously regarding a subject as mundane as a modeling show with an individual he met only once. Therefore, weighing the evidence, it is more likely that Ms. Scruggs' version prevails and that, in fact, she and Respondent did meet.
Blackmon returned to the bar one other time, on July 20, 1983. On this occasion, he talked with an obvious juvenile who identified himself as "Cookie" and who he asked if he could get cocaine. This juvenile went over to another man identified as Juan Cidbury, from whom he got a package and returned to Blackmon. Blackmon purchased this substance, which was subsequently identified upon laboratory analysis as cocaine, and during the entire time, Cooper was standing behind the bar and observing the transaction.
Neither Blackmon nor Scruggs ever saw Respondent, Luke Range, on the premises of the Flame Bar when they were there.
Willie Cooper, who is presently unemployed, worked for the Respondent at the Flame Bar for approximately a year and a half up to July of 1983, when he was fired by the Respondent, who found out about the investigation that was going on. Cooper was subsequently arrested on charges arising out of the alleged sales of cocaine described herein and was found guilty on at least one charge.
The Flame Bar was open until 2:00 a.m. Cooper's immediate supervisor was O. P. Smith, who would come in three or four times a day. Respondent would come into the bar once or twice a day, mostly in the mornings. Cooper knew that some of the patrons smoked or used narcotics on the premises, but he never reported these problems or these incidents to the Respondent. His instructions were to stop any drug activity immediately, either by directing the offender to leave, or, in the event the offender failed to do so, by calling the police. Cooper has frequently called the Cocoa Police Department because of disturbances at the bar, but admittedly has never done so because of drug offenses. Respondent had indicated to Cooper that he did not want drugs in the bar. As a result, neither Cooper nor any of the other bartenders at the Flame Bar kept drugs on the premises or dealt in drugs there. In this case, he got the drugs for Scruggs and Blackmon because she, Scruggs, asked him to do so and he liked the way she looked. He got the cocaine that he sold on these occasions from outside the bar from individuals in the area. The cocaine, however, was not kept in the bar until he brought it in for the immediate sale.
Oliver Smith works for Respondent as general manager of both the Flame Bar and the 20-Grand bar and has done so since 1980. His office is in the 20- Grand, which is located approximately a mile from the Flame Bar. During the normal business day, he starts at the Flame Bar, staying there for two or three hours, then goes to the 20-Grand. During the day, he goes back and forth between the bars several times. He did not have any knowledge of Cooper having drugs on the premises or of Cooper having any drug problems or in fact any problems with the law before this incident. He has never seen drugs used in the Flame Bar; he has smelled marijuana, but has never seen it smoked there; and he claims he is usually there during the busy times.
He has not discussed the issue of drugs with the Respondent because he did not see that drugs in this bar were a problem. He has continued to instruct his bartenders to ask drug users to leave and, if they did not, to call the police.
Since these incidents took place in July, 1983, management has hired several more people to work at the Flame Bar to keep out drugs. They have also added more lights to the place to brighten up the area.
Numerous individuals personally testified for Respondent, including such responsible persons as Nathaniel Hooks, a Lieutenant in the Cocoa Police Department who has been with that department for 17 years. He recalls the Flame Bar when it was known as the Central Bar and, at that time, it was considered a bad place for drugs. However, since Respondent has taken over ownership, there has been a tremendous decrease in the number of police calls to the area and a marked increase in its beautification. Hooks himself has been in the Flame Bar at various times and has never seen drug activity in there. To his knowledge, there have been no drug arrests at the Flame Bar within the past year by people under his supervision and, according to his understanding, the police department has not complained to Respondent about his establishment. To the contrary, it is Hooks' understanding that Respondent came to the former chief of police back sometime prior to this investigation in an attempt to get more police coverage in the area for several reasons, one of which was not drugs. Both Willie Cooper and the Respondent have good records with the police department and have not been in any difficulty whatsoever. Of the 91 calls logged by the Cocoa Police Department from the period November 26, 1982, through June 30, 1983, there were no calls for alleged drug violations. Hooks admits to being a friend of the Respondent over a period of years. He owns and operates a security company in
his off-duty time in Cocoa from which the Respondent contracts for security for the 20-Grand bar. He also provided security for a former club owned by the Respondent. He has contracts with eight other businesses to provide security.
Leon Collins, a former city councilman in Cocoa from 1973 to 1983, has been a friend of the Respondent for 18 years or so and has known him through his. activities with several civic organizations. Respondent has an outstanding reputation in the area and has contributed greatly to city and civic organizations, as well as to churches and youth organizations. Collins goes into the Flame Bar about once a month to have a drink. He has never seen anyone in the Flame Bar smoking or using drugs.
Robert Manning, the Principal of Poinsett Middle School in Cocoa, which is located about six to seven blocks from the Flame Bar, has known the Respondent for approximately 14 to 15 years. When he, Manning, was Vice Chairman of the Human Relations Commission in Titusville, Florida, on one occasion, Respondent came to speak to that organization in support of the Commission's position on Project 235 housing. At that time, Respondent was a builder building Project 235 housing in Central and South Brevard County. Respondent was also a participant with NASA and Brevard Community College in forums on minority business opportunities. Respondent is a big supporter of his school and has raised money for it. Respondent also contributes to civic and humanitarian causes in the community, and Mr. Manning is certain that Respondent would not condone any illegality in any of his businesses. He sees Respondent as a clean liver personally who has made a tremendous difference in cleaning up the old Central Bar.
The Principal of Cocoa High School, Richard Blake, is also the Chairman of the Rockledge City Council, on which he has served for 10 years. He has known Respondent well for 12 to 13 years, after Respondent came to the Cocoa area from Detroit and lived with Blake's parents for a while. He knows Respondent to be very active in civic affairs. Respondent was the witness's campaign treasurer at one time and has a very high reputation in the business, lay and church communities. He always supports activities for underprivileged children and has an upright character and high principles. Respondent has a reputation as a builder, not a destroyer, and Mr. Blake has seen significant positive changes in both the 20-Grand club and the Flame Bar since Respondent has been involved with them. In his opinion, Blake feels Respondent would take immediate and direct corrective action if he knew drugs were being used in his club.
This sentiment is also held by Barbara L. Jenkins of Cocoa, a teacher/counselor of adult education at Brevard Community College who knows the Respondent through his community activities. Ms. Jenkins feels the Respondent is unique in that he is interested in the total community and will do all he can for the community or get it done if he cannot do it himself. He supports programs both for children and the elderly, and his general reputation in Cocoa, as she knows it, is as an advisor to work hard to reach goals. In her opinion, Respondent would not condone drugs in his establishment. She feels that if Respondent is guilty of anything, it is of being too trusting.
Ricardo Davis is a member of the executive board of the local NAACP chapter and was its president during 1983. 59 far as is his knowledge, neither the NAACP nor the City of Cocoa prompted an investigation of the Flame Bar in particular because of drug activity in that establishment. Mr. Davis has known Respondent for ten years and considers him as one of the leading black
businessmen in the community whose character is above reproach. He does not believe Respondent would condone drugs in his premises.
These sentiments and sentiments similar thereto are expressed in the
23 testimonial letters submitted by Respondent from diverse people, including business leaders, professional people, ministers, law enforcement officers, educators and the like. Without question, it is obvious that Respondent has an excellent reputation in the community for honesty, integrity, square dealing and high business and personal scruples.
In his own testimony, Respondent indicated he was not aware that anything close to the type of activity described in the testimony here was going on. His manager, Smith, had told him there were drug problems in the general area, and he had asked the police department for help in policing the area, but he had no idea any of it was going on in his establishment. Cooper did not talk to him about drug activity, either. It was Respondent's continuing instruction to his employees that if anyone was illegally using narcotics, to put that individual out, and if the individual refused to go, to call the police.
Neither the police nor the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco ever contacted him about drug problems prior to the investigation, a fact which is admitted by representatives of both agencies.
Respondent went to the Flame Bar three to four times a week at different times of the day, normally, however, before 8:00 P.M.. He never saw any drug activity of any kind at anytime that he went in there, nor did his bartenders ever tell him of any going on. In short, no agency, including the police, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, the sheriff's office, and the city council (he knew and met with several councilmen on a repeated basis) , ever told him there was any problem with drugs in his establishment or interest in his area. His first knowledge of this investigation was when the beverage agents called him to their office and told him what had happened. He immediately thereafter fired Willie Cooper, who had never given any indication over the three years he had worked for Respondent that he used or had any connection with drugs.
In efforts to reduce the potential for drug activity, as was previously referenced by Smith, Respondent has cut hours of operation for the Flame Bar to six hours per day, has increased lighting in the place and has employed security guards at the Flame Bar to work directly for him, a situation he has had in effect since 1979, when he first took the bar over.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the proceedings.
In Paragraph 1 of the Notice to Show Cause, it is alleged that Respondent's employee, Willie Cooper, while acting within the scope of his duties as bar manager, unlawfully possessed and sold or delivered cocaine to Beverage Officers Maria Scruggs and Paul Blackmon while on the licensed premises in violation of Sections 893.13(1) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981).
Cocaine is a substance controlled under Section 893.03, Florida Statutes (1981), the sale or delivery of which is made a violation by Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1981).
Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, states that a license may be revoked or suspended when there is shown 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 beverages, 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 revocation of a license except as permitted by chapter 92 or the rules of evidence.
The evidence introduced is sufficient to establish that on July 15, 1983, as alleged, Willie Cooper sold cocaine to Maria Scruggs and Paul Blackmon while on the premises of the Flame Bar in Cocoa, Florida. At the time of the sale, he was employed by Respondent as bar manager.
The evidence also reflects that on July 16, 1983, Cooper again sold cocaine to Blackmon in violation of the Florida Statutes while he was serving as bar manager.
In Allegation 3, it is alleged that between July 8, 1983, and July 20, 1983, Respondent, or his employees, did maintain the licensed premises as a public nuisance under Section 823.10, Florida Statutes (1981), by permitting it to be visited by persons for the purpose of unlawfully using substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
The substances in question here, marijuana and cocaine, are controlled substances, the possession, sale, or delivery of which is made punishable under Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1981). Section 823.10, Florida Statutes (1981), states:
Any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling house, building, vehicle, ship, boat, vessel, aircraft, or any place whatever, which is visited by persons for
the purpose of unlawfully using any substance controlled under chapter 893 or any drugs as described in chapter 500, or which is used for the illegal
keeping, selling, or delivering of the same, shall be deemed a public nuisance. No person shall keep or maintain such public nuisance or aid and abet another in keeping or maintaining such public nuisance.
Here again, the testimony of Ms. Scruggs and Mr. Blackmon as to the repeated purchases of cocaine in the Flame Bar on July 8, 9, 15, 16 and 20 constitutes sufficient evidence to establish that a public nuisance was conducted on the premises, albeit at least on July 8, 9 and 20. Some of the alleged sales of cocaine were not by employees of the Respondent, nor was there any evidence to indicate that the use or sales of marijuana were by employees of the Respondent.
Petitioner has the authority to revoke or suspend the license of any licensee when it finds that either the licensee or its agents have violated certain laws of the State on the licensed premises. Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)
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, the evidence shows that the laws are repeatedly and flagrantly violated by the employees, there arises an inference that the violations were either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by the licensee notwithstanding his absence from the premises when the violations took place; Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359 (2 DCA Fla. 1962); Lash, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d
276 (3 DCA Fla. 1982). As a result of the above cases and others similar, the standard of simple negligence may be applied to the discipline of the beverage license. Bach v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 378 So.2d 34 (1 DCA Fla. 1979). A licensee has the obligation to maintain sufficient intelligence with regard to his own establishment so as to 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, Department of Business Regulation, 371 So.2d 138 (l DCA Fla. 1979)
The evidence here does not establish that Respondent had any knowledge of, or participation in, the illicit and illegal activities described by the witnesses. Neither Scruggs nor Blackmon ever saw Respondent in the premises, and the witnesses who had seen him there testified that he was there early in the day, when the likelihood of this type of behavior was less. Further, it is recognized that Respondent's employee Cooper was the only employee alleged to have been involved in misconduct, and the remaining misconduct described by the police officers, Scruggs and Blackmon, can be directly attributed to patrons.
However, Respondent, otherwise clearly established to be an astute and creditable businessman, failed to supervise this enterprise more effectively. The misconduct described here by the employee and patrons is not a unique occurrence. The police officers who testified indicated it had been going on to some degree or another for a long time, and the testimony of Scruggs and Blackmon documented it for at least a 12-day period. It is regrettable that Respondent, in his effort to be a family man at home with his family in the evening, did not take a more active interest in the operation of this investment, for it is clear that his failure to do so directly related to the widespread drug use in and around the Flame Bar. As the owner of the establishment and as the holder of the license, he had the responsibility to ensure in himself a knowledge of the activity going on in his establishment, and
his failure to do so, while not an intentional violation of the statute, is nonetheless actionable negligence.
The parties have submitted proposed recommended orders which include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted only to the extent that they are expressly set out in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above. They have been otherwise rejected as contrary to the better weight of the evidence, not supported by the evidence, irrelevant to the issues, or legally erroneous.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent's 4-COP License No. 15-96 for the Flame Bar and Lounge be suspended for ninety (90) days and that Respondent pay a fine of $1,000.
RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
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 3rd day of February, 1984.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Frank J. Griffith, Esquire Post Office Box 37 Titusville, Florida 32781
Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary
Department of Business Regulation
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation
725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 13, 1984 | Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1984 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 01, 1984 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 03, 1984 | Recommended Order | Evidence sufficient to show failure to properly supervise establishment to prevent drug activity is sufficient to support discipline of license. |
