STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS )

REGULATION, DIVISION OF )

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND )

TOBACCO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2907

)

MICHAEL JOHN MANCUSO, d/b/a )

THE GASLIGHT LOUNGE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On November 29 and 30, 1990, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Clearwater, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Nancy C. Waller, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business

Regulation

725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

For Respondent: Paul Castagliola, Esquire

Riden, Earle & Kiefner, P.A.

100 Second Avenue South 4th Floor North Tower

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

At issue in this case is an Amended Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), charging the Respondent, Michael John Mancuso, d/b/a The Gaslight Lounge (the licensee), with two counts of maintaining or operating a place resorted to for the purpose of lewdness, in violation of Section 796.07(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case went to hearing on a Notice to Show Cause alleging two counts of keeping a house of ill fame in violation of Section 796.01, Fla. Stat. (1989). At the final hearing in this case, the DABT presented the testimony of two

undercover DABT investigators and four undercover Pinellas County Sheriff deputies who investigated The Gaslight Lounge on October 12 and 13, 1989. The DABT also introduced exhibits in evidence.

The DABT offered in evidence a third exhibit, consisting of jury verdicts finding three dancers who were working at The Gaslight Lounge on October 13, 1989, guilty committing a lewd act. Objections to the admission of these exhibits are sustained. These exhibits do not on their face reveal whether the defendants were charged with the same conduct alleged in this case. In addition, the Respondent in this case was not a party to the criminal charges, and basic fairness would preclude the use of these exhibits against the Respondent to prove that the defendants committed the lewd acts alleged in this case unless evidence were presented to show why it would be fair to do so.

Finally, none of these dancers testified in this case, and the jury verdicts have no impeachment value.

Along with the DABT's proposed recommended order filed on January 22, 1991, came a Motion for Leave to Amend to Conform to Proof. 1/ The motion seeks to amend the Notice to Show Cause in this case to allege, on the same facts, two counts of violations of Section 796.07(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989), instead of Section 796.01, as originally alleged. The reason for the motion to amend is a decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Warren v. State, Slip Opinion 75,791, January 3, 1991, holding Section 796.01 to be unconstitutional. The only difference between Section 796.01 and 796.07(2)(a) is that the former prohibits the keeping of a "house of ill fame," reputed to be resorted to by persons for the purpose of, among other things, lewdness, while the latter prohibits the maintenance or operation of a place resorted to for the purpose of, among other things, lewdness. The only difference in proof is the element of reputation that had to be proved under Section 796.01 but does not have to be proved under Section 796.07(2)(a). There is no allegation, 2/ and no evidence in the record, that the Respondent would be prejudiced by granting the motion. Under the circumstances, the Motion for Leave to Amend to Conform to Proof is granted.

Reference is made throughout the record in this case to an earlier proceeding entitled Dept. of Business Reg., etc., v. Hoskins and Mancuso, d/b/a Sweethearts, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 90-2913, involving similar charges arising out of the operation of a similar establishment in Pinellas County called "Sweethearts." Sweethearts was part-owned by the Respondent in this case, along with another individual. The Sweethearts case resulted in a Recommended Order entered by this Hearing Officer that the Sweethearts license be revoked. The Sweethearts Final Order adopted the Recommended Order. Official recognition is taken of the Division of Administrative Hearings file in the Sweethearts case. However, this case differs from Sweethearts in two important respects. In Sweethearts, the licensee did not present any evidence to contradict the DABT evidence, while the Respondent in this case presented extensive evidence to disprove that any lewd acts took place, as alleged, or that, if they did, whether the Respondent was culpably responsible for them. The Respondent himself, his son, both a former and the current manager of The Gaslight Lounge, several employees including bartenders, waitresses, dancers, disk jockey and bouncer, and a customer testified in the Respondent's behalf in this case. As a result of the testimony and evidence in this case, the main question in this case is whether lewd acts took place and, if they did, whether the Respondent was culpably responsible for them. Meanwhile, the evidence in this case served to largely eliminate the main question presented in the Sweethearts case--whether the statute prohibiting

lewdness was impermissibly vague. The Respondent and all of his employees had a clear understanding of what constituted unlawful lewd acts by dancers at The Gaslight Lounge.

The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order in the time allotted. Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Petitioner's proposed recommended order may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 90-2907.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent, Michael John Mancuso, (the licensee), holds license number 62-0337, Series 4-COP, authorizing him to sell alcoholic beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises of The Gaslight Lounge, located at 2070

   U.S. 19 South, Clearwater, Florida.

   
   

2. The Gaslight Lounge is a bar where, in addition to buying alcoholic beverages, the mostly male patrons can watch "exotic dancing" on stage and pay tips for a "table dance." 3/ The dancers are physically attractive females dressed in underwear or "T-back" 4/ bathing suit bottoms and bathing suit or tank tops. They are engaged by the management of The Gaslight Lounge to perform at the lounge. As they dance on stage, the disc jockey on duty introduces them by their stage names to the patrons present and encourages the patrons to ask the dancers to perform "table dances" for them personally. The dancers also directly solicit "table dances" from the customers. At the end of each shift, each dancer generally "tips out" i.e., pays out of tips collected, $15 to the manager, disk jockey and bartender.

   
   

3. Ever since the Respondent acquired The Gaslight Lounge in about 1982, he has been concerned about illegal activities on the premises that could jeopardize his license. He has conferred with law enforcement to ascertain his responsibilities as to both drug use and lewd activities on the premises. As a result, he made and enforced a policy that dancers at The Gaslight Lounge are not permitted to touch patrons at all with the dancer's vaginal or anal area and are not permitted to touch the groin area of the patron with any part of the dancer's body; the patron is not permitted to touch the dancer's breasts, buttocks or vaginal area. Patrons are not permitted to touch the dancers in the breast, buttocks or vaginal area. The Respondent instructed his employees that patrons who violated the policy should be warned to stop and, if necessary, be required to leave the premises. The Respondent understood that violations of his policy would result in unlawful lewd acts.

   
   

4. During his ownership of The Gaslight Lounge, the Respondent has instructed his managers and all employees about the policy against lewdness (as well as other policies). The employees--bartenders, waitresses, disk jockeys and dancers--were instructed to notify the manager on duty if they witnessed violations of the Respondent's policy. The Respondent also made it a practice to visit the establishment, during the hours it was open, but not on a regular schedule, to most effectively monitor for compliance with his policies. If he or one of his managers saw, or were told of, a violation of the Respondent's policy against lewdness, the offending dancer would be cautioned to observe the policy, sometimes after being called off the floor and into a back office. If the dancer repeated the offense, the dancer would be subject to being fired. Over the years, dancers have been fired for lewd dancing in violation of the Respondent's policy.

5. Enforcement of the Respondent's policy against lewdness is not easy. Since the patron typically is seated with his back to the wall, the dancer's body is between the patron and almost anyone viewing the dance and partially obstructs the view. In addition, the lighting inside the establishment is dim, making it difficult to see exactly what the dancer and patron are doing, especially if seen from a distance. There are columns and half-walls in the building. In addition, patrons and employees circulate within the establishment, and dancing takes place on a stage in the middle of the establishment, all of which also can obstruct one's view of a "table dance," depending on the location of the viewer and the dance being observed.

   
   

6. A "table dance" typically lasts for one song played by the disk jockey. The dancer escorts the patron to one of the booths lining the perimeter walls of the bar area, sits the patron down near the edge of the booth bench and begins "dancing." Even if it remains within the bounds of the Respondent's policy against lewdness, the dance is intended to be sexually suggestive and provocative, sometimes appearing to simulate sex acts. Depending on how the dance is performed, it can give the illusion that the dancer is rubbing various parts of her body, including the genital area, buttocks and breasts, against various parts of the body of the customer, including his genital area and face. Regardless how the dance is performed, the customer remains fully dressed, and the dancer does not remove any clothing (i.e., she remains dressed either in underwear or in her "T-back" bathing suit).

   
   

7. The Respondent concedes that dancers have violated the Respondent's policy against lewdness. The evidence is that the Respondent tries to police and prohibit these violations, not always successfully. Sometimes, the Respondent or his manager, bartender, disk jockey or other employee think they see lewd dancing taking place, only to see from close proximity when they approach the dancer to reprimand her that no physical contact actually was occurring during the dance.

   
   

8. Clearly, there is tension between the Respondent's policy and the economics of an establishment such as The Gaslight Lounge. Although less than a majority of the patrons of the establishment ask for table dances (the testimony included estimates of 15 to 20 percent), table dancing undeniably is a prominent part of the spectrum of entertainment offered at The Gaslight Lounge. For many patrons who ask for table dances, the more suggestive and provocative the better. The evidence suggested that the patrons receiving table dances never have complained that dancers violated the Respondent's policy. Although it was disputed that the amount of the dancers' tips are exclusively related to how suggestively and provocatively they dance, it is clear that this is a big factor. Walking the line drawn by the Respondent (and the authorities) to prohibit lewd dancing at The Gaslight Lounge is somewhat akin to trying to keep a pot of water from boiling over with the heat on high.

   
   

9. At the same time, the tension between the Respondent's policy and the economic facts of life also can serve to aid in the monitoring and enforcement of the policy. A dancer who observes the policy feels at an unfair disadvantage when another dancer is violating the policy, and it is likely that the "legal" dancer will attempt to enforce the policy, by either threatening to report the "lewd" dancer or, if necessary, by reporting her to the manager or to the Respondent.

   
   

10. In August, 1989, an undercover investigation was conducted at Sweethearts, an "exotic dance" lounge in which the Respondent was part owner. It resulted in the arrest of several dancers. The Respondent happened to be

    driving past the lounge when the arrests were being made and pulled in to see what was going on. When the Respondent told the law enforcement officers who he was, he was arrested for keeping a house of ill fame. Although the Respondent's efforts to understand exactly what was being enforced, i.e., exactly what was considered to be illegal lewd dancing, was somewhat frustrated by the various answers he received to his questions, the answers confirmed that the policies he had in effect against lewdness were adequate to prohibit the type of dancing that was considered by law enforcement to be lewd and illegal. This confirmed to him that if he continued to enforce his policies, he would be able to continue to operate his exotic dance lounges within the limits of the law.

    
    

11. On October 12, 1989, two DABT investigators conducted an undercover operation at The Gaslight Lounge. The purpose of the operation was to see if violations of the criminal laws against lewdness were taking place in the lounge. During the time the investigators were in the lounge, they believed that they observed lewd acts by several dancers. The investigators believed that the dancers rubbed various parts of their bodies, including the genital area, buttocks and breasts, against various parts of the body of patrons, including the genital area and face, and that some of the patrons rubbed the breast area of the dancer or grabbed their buttocks in the area of the anal cleft, behavior which the dancers did little to stop or deter.

    
    

12. These observations were made from a table in the lounge; the conduct being observed took place at the booths along the wall between approximately ten to twenty-five or more feet away. In all cases, at least some part of the dancer's body was between the patron and the investigator. In some cases, there was a column in the general vicinity of the investigator's line of vision; sometimes, there were other hindrances to the vision of the investigators, such as half-walls, other patrons or other employees. The lighting was dim; it would have been difficult to read a newspaper at the table where the investigators were sitting.

    
    

13. Instead of exclusively relying on their powers of observation, each investigator asked a dancer to perform one table dance for him personally. During the dances actually performed for the investigator, no lewd activity was observed. The dancers did not actually touch either investigator with any part of the dancer's body. Neither investigator touched either dancer in the vaginal or breast area.

    
    

14. The Respondent, who was in the lounge for part of the evening, and all of the employees working in the lounge that night who testified, testified that they observed no violations of the Respondent's policies against lewdness on October 12, 1989.

    
    

15. At the end of the evening, uniformed sheriff's deputies entered The Gaslight Lounge and arrested all of the dancers, except the two that actually performed table dances for the DABT investigators, for illegal lewd acts.

    
    

16. The next day, the Respondent and his manager spent hours on the phone trying to find dancers to replace those that had been arrested and to persuade the others to work that evening, notwithstanding the arrests of the night before. The Respondent, his manager and all the employees who worked that evening, especially the dancers, were very aware of the arrests of the night before. The dancers and all the employees were cautioned not to violate the Respondent's policy against lewdness. Some of the dancers were afraid to do any

    table dances at all for fear of arrest in light of the events of the previous evening, and some restricted their dancing on October 13 to the stage in the middle of the lounge.

    
    

17. On the evening of October 13th, unaware of the events of the previous evening, three sheriff's deputies investigated The Gaslight Lounge for lewd activity. These deputies described essentially the same observations of the table dances as the DABT investigators had made the evening before, from vantage points that were no better. In addition, the observations of two of the deputies included rather bizarre alleged behavior consisting the dancer rubbing the patron's groin and chest area with the top of her head. None of the Respondent's employees observed any such behavior. The Respondent, who was in Orlando on the evening of the thirteenth, testified that he never observed dancers behave in such a manner in all the years he owned and operated The Gaslight Lounge. The Respondent was rightly skeptical of these so-called observations. At the end of the evening, the sheriff's office arrested all of the dancers, even the ones who had refrained from performing any table dances that night.

    
    

18. The employees working at The Gaslight Lounge on October 13, 1989, who testified at the hearing testified that they observed no violations of the Respondent's policy against lewdness that evening.

    
    

19. After the arrests on October 13, 1989, the Respondent was so convinced that the dancers were innocent that he paid to bail them out of jail and paid their lawyers to defend them on the criminal charges.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. Section 561.29(1), Fla. Stat. (1989), provides that the DABT has full power and authority to revoke or suspend a beverage license when it is determined that the licensee or his or her agents, officers, servants, or employees violated any of the laws of this state on the licensed premises.

    
    

21. Section 561.29(3), Fla. Stat. (1989), also provides that the DABT may impose a civil penalty against the licensee for any violation, not to exceed

    $1,000 per violation arising out of a single transaction.

    
    

22. Initially, the Notice to Show Cause alleged a violation of Section 796.01, Fla. Stat. (1989). Section 796.01 makes it a third degree felony to keep a house of ill fame which is resorted to by persons for the purpose of lewdness. 5/

    
    

23. The recent Supreme Court decision in Warren v. State, 16 F.L.W. SCO 28 (Fla. 1991), held that Section 796.01 is unconstitutionally vague. However, the majority held that only the phrase "house of ill fame" is unconstitutionally vague, not the term "lewdness."

    
    

24. In light of the Warren decision, when the DABT filed its proposed recommended order, it moved to amend the Notice to Show Cause to conform to the evidence to allege a violation of Section 796.07(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989), instead of Section 796.01. The only difference between the two statutes is the element of reputation that must be alleged under Section 796.01 but need not be alleged under Section 796.07(2)(a). Otherwise, the elements of Section 796.01, against which the Respondent defended at hearing, are the same as the elements of Section 796.07(2)(a). The record will reflect that, unlike the approach taken by the Respondent in the Sweethearts case, in this case, the Respondent

    vigorously defended on all of the common elements of the offenses. The record reflects that the Respondent has not been unfairly prejudiced in his defense by the amendment of the charges to conform to the evidence. The Respondent has not filed a response in opposition to the motion to amend and has not even asserted that there has been any prejudice. There is no reason why the DABT should not be permitted to amend the charges to conform to the evidence by charging a violation of Section 796.07(2)(a) instead of Section 796.01.

    
    

25. Section 796.07(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989), provides that it is a second degree misdemeanor to "keep, set up, maintain or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution."

    
    

26. Section 796.07(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989), makes it unlawful to offer to commit or to engage in lewdness.

    
    

27. Section 796.07(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989), defines the word "lewdness" to include "any indecent or obscene act."

    
    

28. Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) defines the word "lewd" as follows:

    
    

    Obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. The term imports a lascivious intent. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity.

    
    

29. It is concluded that "lap dancing," i.e., the kind of table dancing that violates the Respondent's policy against lewdness, constitutes "lewdness" under Section 796.07(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989). See G & B of Jacksonville v. Dept. of Business Reg., 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

    
    

30. The decision in Campbell v. State, 331 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1976), does not require a conclusion that "lap dancing" is not lewd. In Campbell, the Court addressed a specific statute, Section 798.02, Fla. Stat., and specific facts. Section 798.02 made it a crime "if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) In Campbell, the evidence was that the defendant, a waiter in a dimly lit homosexual bar, while holding a serving tray with one hand, reached under the table where an undercover policeman was sitting and fondled the policeman's genital area with his other hand. The whole incident lasted for about five seconds. Citing Pitchford v. State, 65 Fla. 146, 61 So. 243 (Fla. 1931), the Campbell court held that, to be a crime under 798.02, the defendant's conduct must be "extremely indecent, immoral, and offensive." The narrow holding in Campbell was that the specific conduct in that case was not "extremely indecent, immoral, and offensive."

    
    

31. It also is noteworthy that some of the Supreme Court opinions in the Campbell case, and in the cases cited in the Campbell case, suggested that the Legislature should revisit the "vintage morals laws" and remove laws encompassing conduct no longer considered criminal. In Warren, the Court went so far as to hold Section 796.01, the law prohibiting the maintenance of a "house of ill fame," to be just such an unconstitutionally vague "vintage morals law." But, as mentioned, the Court stopped short of ruling laws against "lewdness" to be unconstitutional. And, as yet, the Legislature has not removed Section 796.07(2)(a) (or 798.02 or any of several others making "lewdness" criminal) from the Florida Statutes.

32. The dancers at The Gaslight Lounge were employees of the lounge regardless whether they were paid a salary. See Zubi Advertising Services, Inc., v. State of Florida, Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, Div. of Unemployment Comp., 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Brewer v. Coeto, 379 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

    
    

33. It was not proven that lewd dancing was taking place at The Gaslight Lounge on October 12 and 13, 1989. The lighting was dim, and the officers who testified that they saw lewd dancing may not have had an unobstructed view. The evidence was that it is difficult to determine whether actual physical contact is taking place unless the person observing the dance is in very close proximity and has an unobstructed view. Significantly, the table dances performed for the officers personally turned out not to be lewd--there was no physical contact. Also, it is unlikely that rampant lewd dancing would have occurred on the evening of October 13th, the day after the first arrests, and there are other reasons to suspect the credence of the testimony of the sheriff's deputies who testified about the events of the thirteenth.

    
    

34. Even if lewd dancing did occur on October 12 or 13, 1989, it cannot be inferred, as found in the Sweethearts case, that the licensee knew or should have known that lewd dancing was taking place at the lounge on those dates, or on a regular basis. The evidence in this case was that the Respondent made every reasonable effort to run an exotic dance establishment within the limits of the law. The evidence was that he established policies prohibiting lewd dancing and that he made reasonable efforts to enforce those policies. Cf. Lash, Inc., v. Dept. of Business Reg., 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Cf. also G & B of Jacksonville v. Dept. of Business Reg., 371 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Pauline v. Lee, 147 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). As such, it was not proven that the Respondent is culpably responsible for any lewd dancing that might have taken place at The Gaslight Lounge on October 12 and 13, 1989, or for keeping, setting up, maintaining or operating The Gaslight Lounge for the purpose of lewdness.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause against the Respondent, Michael John Mancuso, d/b/a The Gaslight Lounge, located at 2070 U.S. 19 South, Clearwater, Florida.

RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ Although counsel for the Respondent telephoned the Hearing Officer to indicate that the Respondent would be opposing the motion to amend, the Respondent did not file a response in opposition to the motion in the time allotted by F.A.C. Rule 22I-6.016. Finally, on February 11, 1991, the Respondent filed a written request for an extension of time to respond to the motion to amend. The request does not state that the DABT, which already has filed its proposed recommended order, concurs. The request for extension of time is denied.

2/ See footnote 1, above.

3/ These dances sometimes are referred to as "lap dances." Although the evidence contains no precise definition of the terms "table dance" and "lap dance," the former designation seems to be used to indicate legal dancing for an individual patron while the latter designation refers to illegal, lewd dancing during which, among other lewd activity, the dancers actually sit in the patron's lap, making unmistakable physical contact, and gyrate to the music and simulate sex acts. In any event, for purposes of this Recommended Order, the designations are used in this manner. (No such distinction between "table dancing" and "lap dancing" was made in the Sweethearts case.)

4/ A "T-back" describes the bottom of the bathing suit. It consists of a waist band from which a piece of cloth just wide enough to barely cover the pubic area descends from the navel area, continues under the genital area, and comes up the back, where it is narrower, just wide enough to barely cover the anal cleft.

5/ The statute also addresses prostitution, but there was no charge or evidence of prostitution on the premises.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2907

To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1989), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any):

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Accepted and incorporated.

2.-3. Rejected in part as not proven and accepted and incorporated in part. As explained in the Findings of Fact, The Gaslight Lounge is a place that advertises "exotic dancing" and a place where "table dancing" occurs. "Table dancing" connotes exotic dancing that does not include the lewd touching described in the proposed finding. "Lap dancing" connotes that lewd touching occurs during the course of the dance. Although lewd touching sometimes occurs, it is against the Respondent's policy, and the lounge management stops it when it is observed.

1. Rejected as not proven. As described in the Findings of Fact, the dim lighting and other factors make it difficult to observe exactly what is occurring during table dances when viewed from any distance. While it is obvious that dancing occurs, it is not obvious whether lewd touching actually occurs during the dance.

2. Accepted and incorporated.

3. Rejected as not proven.

4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

5. Accepted and incorporated.

6. Rejected as subordinate to facts not proven.

7. Accepted and incorporated.

8. Accepted, although there also were other reasons for not arresting patrons; subordinate and unnecessary.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Nancy C. Waller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business

Regulation

725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Paul Castagliola, Esquire Riden, Earle & Kiefner, P.A.

100 Second Avenue South 4th Floor North Tower

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Leonard Ivey, Director

Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco

Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building

725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000

Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, CONCERNING ITS RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER.

Docket for Case No: 90-002907

Orders for Case No: 90-002907