vs. ) CASE NO. 85-1806
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in this case on July 12, 1985, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appearances at the hearing were as follows:
For Petitioner: Louisa E. Hargrett
Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
For Respondent: Chesley V. Morton, Esquire
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 INTRODUCTION
This is a case in which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of alleged violations described at length in a Notice To Show Cause served on the licensee on June 6, 1985.
On or about May 1, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: the barmaid, Linda, did sell or deliver cocaine on your licensed premises on two occasions in violation of F.S. 893.13 (l)(a) and F.S. 561.29.
On or about May 3, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: the barmaid, Linda, did sell or deliver cocaine on two occasions on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(a) and F.S. 561.29.
On or about May 8, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: the barmaid, Linda, did sell or deliver cocaine on two occasions on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(a) and F.S. 561.29.
On or about May 10, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit: the barmaid, Linda, did sell or deliver cocaine on two occasions on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(a) and F.S. 561.29.
On or about May 15, 1985, you Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit the- barmaid, Linda, did sell or deliver cocaine on two occasions on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(a) and F.S. 561.29.
On or about May 3, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit the barmaid, Beatrice, did aid and abet in the sale of cocaine to Officer Thompson while on the licensed premises in violation of F.S. 777.011, 893.13(1), and 561.29.
On or about May 1, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit: the barmaid, Linda, did possess a controlled substance on your licensed premises in vio- lation of F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 561.29.
On or about May .1, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit: barmaid, Beatrice, and barmaid, Linda, did permit others on the licensed premises to violate the laws of the State of Florida by permitting the possession of controlled substances to wit: cannabis in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 561.29(1)(a).
On or about May 3, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit: barmaid, Beatrice, and barmaid, Linda, did permit others on the licensed premises to violate the laws of the State of Florida by permitting the possession of controlled substances to wit: cannabis in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 561.29(1)(a).
On or about May 8, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit: barmaid, Beatrice, did permit others on the licensed premises to violate the laws of the State of Florida by permitting the possession of controlled substances to wit: cannabis in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 561.29(1)(a).
On or about May 14, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee to wit: barmaid, Beatrice, did permit others on the licensed premises to violate the laws of the State of Florida by permitting the possession of controlled substances to wit: cannabis in violation of F.S. 893.13(1)(f) and F.S. 561.29(1) (a).
You, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., between the dates of April 19, 1985, and May 29, 1985, licensed under the beverage laws, your servants, agents or employees did keep or maintain a public nuisance on your licensed premises to wit: maintaining a building or place which is used for the keeping, selling and/or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, F.S., in violation of Section 823.10, F.S., within Section 651.29(1)(a)(c), F.S.
You, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., between the dates of April 19, 1985, and May 29, 1985, licensed under the beverage laws, your servants, agents or employees did maintain a place, to wit: your licensed premises at
706-710 N.W. 1st Street, Dania, Broward County, Florida, which place is used for the keeping, selling and use of controlled substances to wit: cocaine and cannabis in violation of Section 893.13(2)(a)5, within Section 561.29(1)(a)(c), F.S.
On or about May 29, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, your agents, servants or employees to wit: the barmaid Linda did sell or deliver cocaine on your licensed premised [sic] in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) and Florida Statute 561.29.
On or about May 29, 1985, you, Sweet's Lounge, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, your agents, servants or employees to wit: the barmaid Linda did possess a controlled substance on your licensed premises in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(f) and Florida Statute 561.29.
Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact.
Sweet's Lounge, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, Series 2-COP, for the location of Sweet's Lounge, 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges in this case.
On April 24, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva drove his automobile to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He was approached by a male who asked what he wanted, and Oliva responded that he wanted "Boy," a street name for heroin. The male answered that he did not have any. Another male approached Oliva, who again indicated that he wanted some "Boy". Oliva observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge. Beverage Investigator Alphonso Junious was inside the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge and observed the entire transaction with Oliva. He observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge and approach a female patron known as Ramona, who handed the male a tinfoil package. The male returned to Investigator Oliva and exchanged the tinfoil package for $20.00. The male then reentered Sweet's Lounge and gave the $20.00 to Ramona. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances.
On April 25, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva returned to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He discussed the purchase of some "Boy" from an individual named William Rainey. Rainey went inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge and returned with a tinfoil package which he delivered to Oliva in exchange for $20.00. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances.
On April 25, 1985, Investigator Junious returned to the premises of Sweet's Lounge. The on-duty barmaid, Beatrice, left the premises for a short time and asked a female, later identified as the barmaid Linda, who was sitting at the end of the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette, to watch the bar until Beatrice returned. Beatrice said nothing to Linda about the marijuana cigarette. Linda walked behind the bar and continued smoking the marijuana cigarette while performing bartending duties. When Beatrice re-entered the premises, Ramona was standing in the doorway handing a tinfoil package to a male in the view of Beatrice. Junious entered into conversation with Ramona and, during the conversation, Ramona delivered a small tinfoil package to an unknown male patron.
Investigator Reylius Thompson was also inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge on April 25, 1985. He observed
several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, which he was able to identify through their appearance, smell, and the manner of smoking.
On May 1, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. They observed the bartender Beatrice seated at the bar counter with two male patrons who were smoking a marijuana cigarette. After the bartender Linda came on duty, the officers observed her remove a marijuana cigarette from her purse and begin to smoke it behind the bar counter. Junious asked Linda for change for a
$20.00 bill so he could buy cocaine. Linda asked what Junious wanted, and he told her a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse behind the counter and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00.
While Investigator Thompson was seated at the bar on May 1, 1985, he also asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda again removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse and delivered it to Thompson in exchange for $10.00.
On May 3, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. While Beatrice was bartender, Junious observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked to purchase $10.00 piece of cocaine from her. Linda requested Beatrice to hand her her purse, from which she removed a tinfoil package of cocaine. Junious observed a plastic bag containing numerous tinfoil packages inside of Linda's purse. Linda sold the package of cocaine to Junious for $10.00
While Investigator Thompson was sitting at the bar on May 3, 1985, he asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda asked Beatrice to pass her purse to her from behind the bar. Beatrice handed the purse to Linda and Linda took out a tinfoil package of cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00
On May 8, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. While the investigators were seated at the bar counter, they observed three male patrons also seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Beatrice, the bartender. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked her for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed her purse from behind the bar, removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. Later that evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for a $10.00
piece of cocaine. She again removed a tinfoil packet containing cocaine from her purse and sold the cocaine to Thompson.
ll. On May 10, 1985, Investigators Junious, Thompson and McKeithen went to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine, and she replied that she only had rocks. Junious agreed to purchase the rocks and received a tinfoil package of cocaine from Linda, which she had removed from her purse behind the bar. Later that same evening, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine. She removed from her purse a tinfoil package containing cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. That same evening Investigator Thompson observed a male disc jockey smoking marijuana in the presence of patrons and passing the marijuana cigarette to some of the patrons.
On May 14, 1985, Investigators Thompson and McKeithen returned to Sweet's Lounge. Thompson observed four patrons seated at a table cutting a white powder and snorting it from the top of the table. He also observed Ramona and a male patron, while seated at the bar, snort a white powder through an empty cigarette paper tube in view of the bartender Beatrice.
On May 15, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda if she had any cocaine, and she responded that she did but Junious would have to wait until she served a customer. After serving a customer, Linda sold Junious a small tinfoil package containing cocaine for 510.00. Junious also observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, sniffing white powder, and removing tobacco from regular cigarettes, inserting white powder into the cigarettes, and smoking same.
On that same date, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for cocaine. She replied that she had rock or powder cocaine and Thompson ordered rock. Linda walked into the package store portion of the lounge and returned shortly to Thompson, handing him a tinfoil package containing a small rock of cocaine in exchange for $10.00. On that same date Thompson observed Ramona using an empty cigarette paper tube to snort a white powder.
On May 22, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson entered the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. The officers observed patrons seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of bartender Beatrice. The officers also observed Ramona seated at a table with several male
patrons, all of whom were snorting a white powder from the table top and smoking a white powder in cigarettes.
On May 29, 1985, Investigator Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. He observed Linda smoking a marijuana cigarette behind the bar counter and observed Ramona sitting on the west side of the premises with a quantity of white powder on the table. Thompson approached Ramona, sat down next to her, and began to talk to her about cocaine. While Thompson was seated with Ramona another female patron smoked a marijuana cigarette.
Later that same evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for cocaine and she responded that she had rock or powder. He ordered powder and Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, which she sold to Thompson for $10.00.
On the majority of the occasions described above when the investigators were inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge, there was a pervasive odor of marijuana smoke throughout the entire premises. The white powder which was being sniffed by patrons on the licensed premises at the various times described above was cocaine.
In brief summary, the following relevant events took place at the licensed premises during the period of the investigation:
4/24/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance.
4/25/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and a patron delivered two small tinfoil packages to other patrons, and several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes.
5/01/85: Two patrons smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and an employee made two sales of cocaine.
5/03/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes, and an employee made two sales of cocaine.
5/08/85: Three patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in immediate
presence of an employee, and an employee made two sales of cocaine.
5/10/85: A disc jockey smoked marijuana and shared it with patrons, and an employee made two sales of cocaine.
5/14/85: Six patrons sniffed cocaine; two did so in immediate presence of an employee.
5/15/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana and sniffed cocaine, and an employee made two sales of cocaine.
5/22/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in the immediate presence of an employee and several patrons sniffed cocaine.
5/24/85: A patron had cocaine in open view on a table, a patron smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee
on duty smoked a marijuana cigarette, and an employee made one sale of cocaine.
Mr. Ebbie Sweet was never on the licensed premises on any of the occasions described above when the investigators were on the licensed premises.
At all times material to this case, Mr. Andrew Johnson has been the manager of Sweet's Lounge. The owner, Mr. Ebbie Sweet, has given the manager various instructions about the operation of the premises. The instructions include: (a) keep the premises clean, (b) keep drugs out of the premises, (c) tell all employees to do the same, (d) put up signs about what can and cannot be done on the premises [including a sign reading "No Drugs Allowed"], (e) post the DABT flyer, and (f) put a "no loitering" sign outside the premises. The "no loitering" sign has not worked very well. When Mr. Andrew Johnson is on the premises he spends most of his time in the package store portion of the premises and very little of his time in the bar portion.
On one occasion prior to the events described above, the Dania Police Department told Mr. Andrew Johnson there was a drug problem in Sweet's Lounge. He told them to come in anytime they wanted to and to arrest anyone they wanted to. Mr. Johnson did not change any procedures at Sweet's Lounge after the Dania Police Department told him about drug problems.
Mr. Andrew Johnson knows Ramona. He has never seen her buy or use drugs, but he has heard that she is suspected of being a drug user. Ramona was a frequent visitor at Sweet's Lounge.
Mr. Ebbie Sweet is the president of and the principal functionary of Sweet's Lounge, Inc. A sister and a nephew of Mr. Sweet also have some nominal connection to the corporation, but neither of them is active in running the licensed business. Mr. Ebbie Sweet enjoys an excellent reputation in his community. He is active in community affairs and has engaged in various charitable activities for the betterment of his community. It has always been his desire to run a reputable business and if he had known what was going on inside the lounge he would have fired those involved and would have closed the place up himself. In sum: Mr. Ebbie Sweet appears to be a good citizen who was trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, for both him and the community, he wasn't trying quite hard enough.
Some time ago Mr. Ebbie Sweet's wife passed away. As a result of that misfortune Mr. Sweet slowed down a lot and became less active in many things, including the amount of time and energy he devoted to the licensed business. He had at one time visited the licensed premises on a regular basis, but during the past ten months he only made a couple of trips a month to the licensed premises, and those were primarily to check on the inventory. During the past ten months he has hardly ever visited the licensed premises after dark.
Mr. Sweet was relying on Mr. Andrew Johnson to manage things for him at the licensed premises even though he knew that Mr. Johnson was not the most reliable of managers. As Mr. Sweet put it, Mr. Johnson "has a few faults."
Some years ago Mr. Sweet had an alcoholic beverage quota license which permitted him to sell all types of alcoholic beverages at Sweet's Lounge. When he had that license he had written instructions for his employees, he had doormen, and he had security guards. Since he sold the quota license and obtained his present license (which is limited to beer and wine sales), he has not had written instructions for his employees, he has not had doormen, and he has not had security guards. Mr. Sweet does not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees. He has thought about hiring undercover people to patrol the premises, but has never done anything about it.
The area of town in which Sweet's Lounge is located is one in which controlled substances are readily obtainable. Sweet's Lounge has had a recurring problem with undesirable
people loitering in front of the lounge, people Mr. Sweet described as "hoodlums."
All of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used by patrons inside the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. None of the employees took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the use of controlled substances by patrons.
The foregoing findings of fact include the majority of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner. They do not, however, include any proposed findings based solely on the testimony of Investigator McKeithen. Some of the proposed findings based on McKeithen's testimony are irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Other proposed findings based solely on McKeithen's testimony are rejected because much of her testimony was neither persuasive nor convincing. While I have no doubts at all about her candor, honesty, or integrity, I have certain doubts about her attention to detail and her ability to recall and describe with accuracy events that took place in her presence.
In making the finding that the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises were aware of the extensive use of drugs by patrons, I have not overlooked the testimony of the employees denying such knowledge. I find the denials to be unworthy of belief in light of all the other evidence in the record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and on the applicable legal principles, I make the following conclusions of law.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Sec. 120.57(1), Florida Statutes
Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, authorizes the DABT to revoke or suspend a beverage license or to impose a fine of
$1000.00 per violation upon a showing of:
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. . . .
(b) . . .
(c) Maintaining a nuisance on the licensed premises.
Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, declares a place or building where controlled substances are illegally kept, sold, or used, to be a nuisance. And Section 893.13(2)(a)(5), Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any person:
To keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or other structure or place which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for keeping or selling them in violation of this chapter.
Marijuana and cocaine are controlled substances and it is a violation of state law to sell, use, deliver, or possess marijuana or cocaine. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes.
There is no serious dispute in this case about the fact that one of the licensee's employees made numerous sales of cocaine on the licensed premises. The licensee does dispute the fact that there was regular, frequent, and flagrant use of controlled substances by patrons on the licensed premises. The primary basis for the dispute in this regard is that there was no scientific laboratory analysis of the substances smoked and sniffed by the many patrons of Sweet's Lounge who were seen smoking and sniffing on the licensed premises. But the courts have made it clear that scientific laboratory analysis is not the only form of evidence sufficient to identify controlled substances. As noted in A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985):
Testimony on other facts, such as a substance's appearance and smell and the circumstances under which it was seized, can be used to meet the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is marijuana. [Citations omitted] It is generally held that an officer with adequate experience in the narcotics field, and marijuana in particular, can identify a substance as marijuana by its appearance and odor.
I am convinced by the testimony in this case that at least Investigator Junious and Investigator Thompson have sufficient experience and training to identify marijuana by its odor, appearance, and the circumstances under which it is used.
I am equally convinced by the testimony of Investigator Junious and Investigator Thompson that the white powder being sniffed on the licensed premises was cocaine. The appearance of the powder was consistent with the appearance of cocaine. The manner in which the powder was being used was consistent with the manner in which cocaine is customarily used. And perhaps most important, the powder was being used in a place where cocaine was sold on a regular basis. The conclusion that the powder being sniffed by patrons was cocaine is based on circumstantial evidence. But as Henry David Thoreau observed some time ago: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." The circumstances in this case are strong enough to support a finding that the patrons were sniffing cocaine.
There is no competent substantial evidence to prove Count 6 of the Notice To Show Cause, because there is no specific evidence that Beatrice had actual knowledge of the contents of the purse she handed to Linda. There is no competent substantial evidenCe to prove Count 11 because the allegation is that Beatrice permitted the possession of cannabis on May 14, 1985, while the proof is that she permitted the possession and use of cocaine on that date. There is an abundance of competent substantial evidence to prove the other thirteen violations charged in the Notice To Show Cause. Such being the case, the remaining issue to be resolved is whether the facts proved at the hearing are sufficient to warrant the penalty of revocation of the license.
The dispositive court decision appears to be Lash, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So. 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The operative facts before the court in the Lash case are described as follows at page 277 of the decision: The license revocation stemmed from narcotics violations on appellant's premises. The evidence established that on five occasions over a period of a week, undercover beverage agents purchased controlled substances from two of appellant's employees.
At page 278 of its decision, the court in Lash expounds at length on the proper standard for revocation or suspension of a beverage license.
Under Section 561.29(1), where the unlawful activity is committed by the licensee's agent, simple negligence is sufficient for revocation. Admittedly, the courts have refused to uphold revocations when the evidence showed only that on one occasion the licensee's employees violated the laws, and that the licensee otherwise took measures to comply with them. (citations omitted) Where, however, the laws are repeatedly and flagrantly violated by the employees, an inference arises leading to the conclusion that such violations are either fostered, condoned or negligently overlooked by the licensee, notwithstanding his absence from the premises when the violations occur. (citation omitted) Consequently, if the evidence supports the conclusion that the licensee failed to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the licensed premises or the supervision of his employees, he can be found negligent and his license revoked. (citation omitted)
Where the violations are, as here, committed in a persistent and recurring manner consisting of more than one isolated incident, the courts have not hesitated to find that such violations were either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by the licensee, even though he may have been absent at the time of the commission of such. (citations omitted) In
the present case, the recurring sales were made possible by appellant's failure to supervise the premises and his employees in a reasonably diligent manner, properly leading to the license revocation.
Application of the standard set forth in Lash virtually compels revocation when the facts in the Lash case are compared with the facts in this case. In Lash the violations took place over a one week period. Here the violations took place over a period of five weeks. In Lash there were a total of five unlawful sales of controlled substances by the licensee's employees. Here there were eleven unlawful sales of controlled substances by one of the licensee's employees, plus a large number of other unlawful activities involving controlled substances on the licensed premises. These other activities included at least three instances of an employee smoking marijuana on duty, two sales of fake controlled substances by patrons, eight instances of marijuana use by groups of patrons, and four instances of cocaine use by a patron or group of patrons.
The violations proved here are greater in number than those proved in Lash and occurred over a greater period of time. Accordingly, where the unlawful activity is more persistent and recurring than in the Lash case, the appropriate penalty should be no less than that imposed in the Lash case, absent some convincing evidence tending to prove that the unlawful activities took place in spite of the licensee's exercise of due diligence to detect and prevent it. There is no such evidence in this case; rather the evidence specifically establishes the contrary. The licensee spends precious little time at the licensed premises and what little time he does spend there seems to be devoted primarily to attention to the inventory. The licensee has not taken an active role in the hiring, training, or supervision of employees. He has not formulated any written rules or procedures to regulate the conduct of employees or the operation of the licensed premises. He has never required any of his employees to take a polygraph examination. He has left the management of the business in the unsupervised hands of an employee that he acknowledges is not completely reliable. He knows that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which drug trafficking is frequent, but he had no doorman or security personnel to try to prevent drug activity in the licensed premises. And apparently he had not visited the licensed premises at night for a very long time or he would have observed some of the same flagrant violations that were observed
by the investigators. In sum: The licensee was negligent by failing to supervise the licensed premises and his employees in a reasonably diligent manner and it was this negligent inattention which made it possible for the violations to take place.
Under the standards set forth in the Lash case, revocation of the license is clearly warranted. Accordingly, I make the following recommendation.
For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, series 2-COP issued to Sweet's Lounge, Inc., for the premises located at 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida.
MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1985.
Chesley V. Morton, Esquire 604 Southeast Sixth Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages
Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary
