The Issue The question presented in this cause concerns the necessity that the Petitioner pay an additional $1,000 fee which is purportedly required by the conditions of Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes, if it is determined that the Petitioner has more than three permanent separate locations serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on its licensed premises, Store No. 126. This alleged fee requirement is associated with the Petitioner's application to the Respondent for an "increase in series" of its alcoholic beverage license from a Series 3-PS, which permits "package sales" for off-premises consumption only, to a Series 4-COP, which permits consumption of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. The Petitioner claims that the arrangement in the licensed premises does not exceed the limit of three permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages and the Respondent claims that there are four permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises, thereby exceeding by one the allowable limit and causing the imposition of the $1,000 additional license tax set forth in Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On March 24, 1977, the Petitioner, ABC Liquors, Inc., made an application with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for an "increase in series" of its alcoholic beverage license for Store No. 126, located at 3427 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The increase requested was a change from a Series 3-PS license, which permitted "package sales" for off-premises consumption only, to a new Series 4-COP license, which permits consumption of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. For reference purposes, a copy of the front sheet of the application is attached to this Recommended Order and incorporated by reference as Attachment "A". In compliance with the procedures of the Respondent, T. L. Ewing, the Respondent's employee, drew a sketch of the premises on the reverse side of the application referred to in Attachment "A", and a copy of that sketch is attached to this Recommended Order and incorporated by reference as Attachment "B". That sketch is an accurate representation of the interior floor plan of the licensed premises. The floor plan is further depicted in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5, specifically 5E, which is a sketch of the "as-built" plans of the portion of the licensed premises which is the subject of this dispute. This Exhibit 5E, which was admitted into evidence, depicts the deployment of the bar area which is utilized under the terms of a Series 4-COP license applied for. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is a photographic depiction of the type bar arrangements and accessways between certain portions of the bar arrangement; however, this photograph is taken of a similar lounge area and is not the actual area in question. This depicts another one of the Petitioner's lounges, located in a separate licensed premises. As described in the issue statement of this Recommended Order, the controversy presented for consideration involves a characterization of the bar areas shown in Attachment "B" and Petitioner's Exhibit 5E on the question of whether there are more than three permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises. The significance of having more than three permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises is revealed by a reading of Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which states: 565.02 License fees; vendors; clubs; caterers and others.-- (g) Vendors operating places of business where consumption on the premises is permitted and which have ,more than three permanent separate locations serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises shall pay in addition to the license tax imposed in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), $1,000. However, such permanent separate locations shall not include service bars not accessible to the public or portable or temporary bars being used for a single occasion or event. Golf club license holders may operate service bars or portable or temporary bars on the grounds contiguous to their licensed premises and shall pay $100 for a certified copy of the club license, which shall be posted on the bar. The area contiguous to the licensed premises shall be considered an extension of the licensed premises upon payment of the fee, posting of the certified copy of the license, and notation of such extension upon the sketch accompanying the original license application. In reviewing the license application for "increase in series", the Respondent has taken the position that there are within the room which constitutes the lounge area, four separate locations and those four locations are made up of the rotating bar, and the perimeter bar areas which show three sections broken up by the east and west ramps separating those portions of the perimeter bar area. It is the contention of the Respondent that the word "location" is equivalent to the bar areas shown in the lounge room and, counting the rotating bar and the three separate perimeter sections, there would be four locations. Consequently, under the Respondent's theory, the Petitioner is required to pay an additional license tax in the amount of $1,000 for the extra location in excess of the allowable three locations. The Petitioner asserts that the meaning of the word "location" as found in the subsection calls for more definitive separation than is found between the sections of the perimeter bar operation and that the design of the perimeter bar which allows for entrance and exit ramps through the center of the horseshoe shaped device which is the perimeter bar area, does not create the type definition contemplated by the law. To the Petitioner, separate rooms would be more in keeping with the legislative intent in drafting the requirement in Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Moreover, the Petitioner argues that the rampways which divide the perimeter bar into three sections were installed primarily for the purposes of safety and convenience and those efforts to allow for safety and convenience should not be used to unfair advantage by the Respondent in claiming that there are four locations as opposed to a maximum of two locations; those two locations being constituted of the rotating bar and a perimeter bar. The Petitioner claims that certain local ordinances require that exits be available within a specified number of feet of the position a patron might be found in during the course of an emergency and the Petitioner alludes to the fact that the rampways aid in the evacuation through the exits. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the removal of the passageways would cause a violation of the ordinances dealing with emergency exit accessibility. Petitioner also states, and the facts reveal, that within the room proper there are six serving stations in the perimeter bar area, constituted of case registers, soda heads, sinks and other necessary structures to the service of patrons. These soda heads, waterlines, and drainage systems have common origins or terminus. Other relevant facts presented in the case include the facts that the bar structure in terms of the shell of the various positions within the lounge area, are permanent installations, although the soda heads for mixed drinks may be moved around within the shell. There are swinging doors on the northern and southern fingers of the various sections of the perimeter bar area. The rampway is unobstructed unless one of those swinging doors is opened when a person is attempting to use the rampways. The dimensions and measurements within the lounge may be discerned by an examination of the other aspects of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5, with the caveat that these design sheets must be considered in view of the "as-built" sketch found in Petitioner's Exhibit 5E. This statement is made because there were design changes made from the original proposal which relocated the dance floor in the lounge area and made other changes which may be seen in this review.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, ABC Liquors, Inc., be required to pay an additional license tax of $1,000 in all applicable periods for its place of business located at 3427 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James E. Foster, Esq. 170 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Bennie L. Terry was the holder of license No. 26-2105, Series No. 2-APS, a license issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which allowed the sale of wine and beer for takeout, i.e., package sales only at the licensed premises in Jacksonville, Florida. A routine inspection was made of that premises on February 21, 1983, at 10:00 a.m. At that time, the license premises was open for business. Robert Terry, father of the licensee was in charge of the licensed premises on the date in question. In the course of the inspection, a 200 milliliter bottle of gin was found in a cooler which was located in the bar proper. In addition, other gin and whiskey was found in the living quarters of Robert Terry, which is found within the diagram description of the extent of the licensed premises. Gin and whiskey are spirituous liquors not allowed for sale under the terms of the license held by Respondent. By way of explanation, Respondent established that the whiskey and gin found in his father's bedroom was there for the benefit of a private club which held meetings in the licensed premises once a week. Respondent knew of the placement of the whiskey and gin in the bedroom and the conduct of the meetings and had allowed these matters to transpire. Subsequent to the date of the inspection, several other inspections have been conducted and no violations have been detected related to Respondent Terry's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Alberto Calil was the owner of Farmacia La Familia, the holder of a permit to operate a pharmacy under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued permit number 0007056. At all times material hereto, Respondent Hildelisa M. Hernandez has been licensed as a pharmacist under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0016352. At all times material hereto, Hernandez has been the managing pharmacist at Farmacia La Familia and, specifically, has been the only pharmacist employed there. Prior to the events alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein, Respondent Nelson Torres had an ownership interest in Farmacia La Familia. In February 1982, he transferred his interest in the business, and his shares of stock in the corporation owning the business, to Respondent Calil. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Torres did not own or operate a pharmacy. The Miami office of the Department of Professional Regulation received an anonymous letter advising, essentially, that a number of pharmacies were being operated other than in compliance with the law. Georgina Auspitz, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, was instructed by her supervisor to visit each of the pharmacies named in that letter to investigate the allegation. On Friday, March 26, 1982, Auspitz entered the Farmacia La Familia. After a brief conversation with Respondent Hernandez and a customer of the pharmacy, Auspitz asked Hernandez for three dollars' worth of Tranxene 3.75 mg. Hernandez went into the dispensary part of the pharmacy and returned with a manila envelope containing 15 capsules. At no time during this transaction did Auspitz present Hernandez with a prescription. On Monday, March 29, 1982, Auspitz took the envelope and its contents to the Dade County Public Safety Department. A subsequent chemical analysis of the capsules revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as clorazepate, the active ingredient in Tranxene. On April 6, 1982, Auspitz returned to the Farmacia La Familia. She asked Manuel J. Diaz Garcia1 an employee of the pharmacy, for three dollars' worth of Tranxene 7.5 mg. Diaz went into the dispensary part of the pharmacy, had a discussion with an unidentified female, and returned to the main part of the pharmacy to wait on customers. After being advised that the order was ready, Diaz gave Auspitz a manila envelope containing 11 capsules. Auspitz paid Diaz, Diaz placed the money in the cash register, and Auspitz left the pharmacy. At no time during this transaction did Auspitz present to Diaz a prescription. Auspitz took the manila envelope and its contents to the Dade County Public Safety Department. A subsequent chemical analysis of the capsules revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as clorazepate, the active ingredient in Tranxene. After she had made her second "buy" at Farmacia La Familia, Auspitz contacted the City of Miami Police Department to ascertain if one of its narcotics detectives would accompany her on subsequent "buys." As a result of her request, Detective Noel Rojas was assigned to accompany her. On April 8, 1982, Auspitz and Rojas went to the Farmacia La Familia. Crus Caballero, an employee of the pharmacy, approached them. Auspitz told Caballero she wanted three dollars' worth of Ativan, and Rojas told Caballero he wanted five dollars' worth of Valium 5 mg. Caballero wrote something on a scrap piece of paper and went into the dispensary portion of the pharmacy, left the piece of paper, and returned to wait on other customers. Respondent Hernandez came to the door of the dispensary area, "looked over" Auspitz and Rojas, and returned to the dispensary. A few moments later, Caballero brought two manila envelopes to where Auspitz and Rojas were waiting. Although Auspitz had ordered three dollars' worth of Ativan, Caballero only brought her two dollars' worth. After Auspitz agreed to take the smaller quantity, Caballero placed both manila envelopes into one bag, and Auspitz and Rojas paid for their purchases and left the pharmacy. At no time during this transaction did Auspitz or Rojas present Caballero with a prescription. Upon leaving the pharmacy, Auspitz and Rojas separated their purchases. Auspitz took hers to the Dade County Public Safety Department, and Rojas took his to the City of Miami Police Department. The chemical analysis performed on the six tablets purchased by Auspitz revealed the presence of the controlled substance lorazepam, the active ingredient in Ativan. The chemical analysis performed on the 23 tablets purchased by Rojas revealed the presence of the controlled substance diazepam, the active ingredient in Valium. Neither Manuel J. Diaz Garcia nor Crus Caballero is licensed as a pharmacist or registered as a pharmacy intern in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Nelson Torres with prejudice; finding Respondents Farmacia La Familia, Alberto Calil and Hildelisa M. Hernandez guilty of each and every count in the Administrative Complaints filed against them; and revoking pharmacy permit number 0007056 issued to Respondents Farmacia La Familia and Alberto Calil, and further revoking pharmacist license number 0016352 issued to Respondent Hildelisa M. Hernandez DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 5th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Esquire 119 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Raul A. Cossio, Esquire 1900 Coral Way, Suite 404 Miami, Florida 33145 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hinton F. Bevis, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 3230123
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to March 1, 1963, Randall R. Aleno, a former deputy sheriff with the Volusia County, Florida, Sheriff's Department; his brother, Mick Aleno; his father, Charles Aleno; and his wife, Patty Aleno, formed Aleno's Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, with Randall Aleno owning more than 50 percent of the corporate stock. Randall Aleno is the corporate president; Mick Aleno,the vice president; Charles Aleno, the treasurer; and Patty Aleno, the secretary. Having been a long-time resident of Volusia County, Randall Aleno saw a need for and developed a concept for a form of mobile concession stands to operate on the St. Johns River in the general area of Volusia County and the contiguous counties north and south of it. Before taking any definitive steps toward implementing this idea, Randall Aleno, on January 10, 1983, wrote letters both to the Commanding Officer of Port Operations for the U.S. Coast Guard in Jacksonville, Florida, and a representative of the Volusia County Health Department outlining in general terms the nature of his plan and seeking approval of those agencies for the project. Apparently, neither agency interposed any objection. He also contacted the local office of the Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, where he spoke with Agents Dunbar, Blanton, and Clark, outlining his proposal. On at least one occasion, Mr. Aleno told Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco representative Clark, while at the counter in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Daytona Beach office, that he intended to make bulk sales of beer from boats tied to buoys in the St. Johns River at the time of sales, but which would, when not in operation, be moored at the Tropical Marina in DeLand, Florida. In Dir. Clark's opinion, this type of proposed operation was not covered or provided for in the statutes or in the rules of the Division and he felt the applications for licenses for these operations should he denied. According to Mr. Clark, when he advised Mr. Aleno of this on several occasions, Mr. Aleno still wanted to try and submitted the application. At some time during this period, Mr. Aleno, who had been with the sheriff's office for 14 years, retired from that employment, 1/ purchased three houseboats (one 39-foot boat and two 26-foot boats) which he thoroughly rehabilitated to be capable of storage and the sale of sandwiches and package sales of soft drinks and beer. The sandwiches to be sold were to he pre- wrapped, the beverages in cans, coffee in styrofoam cups with lids, and all condiments would be in sealed packages. No food or drink was to be opened or consumed on board the boats, floating concession stands. When the boats were completed, because he had been told by Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco agents at the Daytona Beach office that a license would not be issued to a moving establishment, he secured a boat slip for each boat at the Tropical Marina. Mr. Aleno picked up the applications for beverage licenses from the Daytona Beach office. Me also wrote to a beverage supervisor at the Jacksonville office in an effort to prepare the way for his applications. Mr. Aleno was told, at some point in the procedure, that he would need to submit copies of the plans, the boat layouts and details of the operation. All of these, in addition to the letters from the Coast Guard and the county health department, were submitted for consideration with the applications. Mr. Aleno attempted to describe his proposal to each official with whom he came into contact. The local Division of Alcoholic Beverages Supervisor, Lt. Powell, and Mr. Clark admit that Mr. Aleno told them what he planned to do with his operation and how it would work. Lt. Powell reviewed the complete application and discussed it with Mr. Clark. He, Powell, was aware that the sales of unopened packages of beer would be made out on the river and not at the Tropical Marina before the application was forwarded to Tallahassee for action, but there was nothing written in the application to indicate the sales would be made up and down the river. The applications showed the location of the premises as Tropical Marina, Slips 41, 42 and 43. The applications were forwarded to Tallahassee in the normal course of business apparently without recommendation one way or the other by the local office. The licenses were issued on April 1, 1983, showing their location as Tropical Marina, Slips 41, 42 and 43, respectively, Lakeview Road, DeLand, Florida. The 1-APS licenses were issued to Aleno's Enterprises, Inc. trading as Randv's Subs #41, 42 and 43. (License Numbers 74-1565, 74-1566, and 74-1567) Respondent does not operate its boats as a steamship line. It does not carry people, other than employees, on the boats for pay or gratis. None of the boats go more than 100 miles in either direction from the point of mooring. Respondent has not been selling beverages for consumption on the premises, but has been making package sales only of beer off the boats. Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing Records for Respondent in Tallahassee, reviewed these applications and the license files sometime during the summer of 19-83 after the licenses were issued. His review of the files led him to conclude that the Respondent's operation does not qualify for a 1-APE license because the boats are not permanently moored at their docks. Florida Beverage Laws require, generally, a fixed permanent structure. There are some exceptions for movable vehicles such as steamships, trains, and airplanes and also for pleasure boats which go more than 100 miles per outing. He believes Respondent's boats would qualify for this latter license which, however, is a COP license, not an APS license. He has thoroughly examined the Respondent's applications; and the way the total file reads, it gives him the impression the boats would be moored at the dock in a fixed permanent location. This is why the licenses were issued. Since an obvious mistake was made, and since Mr. Schoenfeld did not know of any provision in the Florida Beverage Law which covers an operation such as that of Respondent, in the summer of 1983, he called Respondent, speaking with Mrs. Patty Aleno, and advised her the operation would have to cease. Upon advice of counsel, Respondent did not stop the operation at that time.
Recommendation That Respondent's licenses be revoked without prejudice so as to permit Respondent or its officers to, in the future, apply for the issuance of a beverage license, if otherwise qualified.
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for multiple sales of controlled substances by employees and patrons on the licensed premises. At the formal hearing, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco called as witnesses, Rodney A. Russ, William J. Spears, and James B. McPherson. The Respondents called as witnesses, Deborah Craven, Tina Meredith, Roxanne Hayes, Walter Humphries, Chris Poulos, Mark Willingham, Leonard Coffee, and Respondent, Fred C. Dillman, II. Petitioner offered no exhibits and Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted memoranda of law. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations and charges in this proceeding, the Respondents F. C. Dillman, B. J. Dillman, and F. C. Dillman, Jr., were the holders of a valid beverage license number 47-196, Series 4-COP. This license is held by Respondents as a partnership and is issued to the licensed premises known as Fred's Back Door Lounge, located at 2009 West Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, Florida. On Saturday, November 12, 1983, Beverage Officer Rodney A. Russ entered the licensed premises, Fred's Back Door Lounge, in an undercover capacity. Officer Russ had been requested by his superiors to conduct an investigation of possible drug activity at the lounge. The lounge is divided into a front area and back area by partial walls and there are bars serving drinks located in both areas. The lounge has a front entrance and a back entrance. The back entrance opens out onto a deck or porch area. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Russ, and a friend who accompanied him, ordered drinks from a bartender named Brenda. Officer Russ and his friend conversed with Brenda and during the course of the conversation, Officer Russ asked her if she knew someone she trusted that he could get two joints from. Joint is a slang or street term for a marijuana cigarette. Brenda responded that she didn't trust anyone. She then left the area where Officer Russ was seated. Officer Russ observed Brenda approach another bartender named Kathy. Kathy handed a rolled up napkin to Brenda and Brenda then walked back over to Officer Russ and handed the napkin to him. The napkin contained 0.975 grams of marijuana, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On this particular evening, the lounge was approximately 3/4 full and had about 75 patrons. The employees on duty included three bartenders, two doormen, and a gentleman in the package store. The conversation with Brenda about drugs occurred in a low town of voice and could not be overheard by other patrons. Brenda attempted to conceal the transfer of the marijuana and there was no effort on Officer Russ's part to make the transfer obvious to anyone else. Brenda was not paid any money for the marijuana. On November 16, 1983, Officer Russ again went to the licensed premises and on this occasion, he was accompanied by Beverage Officer, Gloria Smith. They entered the lounge at approximately 9:30 p.m. and sat at the bar when Brenda was working mixing drinks. They talked with Brenda, and Officer Russ asked her if she could get a couple of joints for him and Smith. Brenda said she would see what she could do. During this conversation, there were patrons standing 2 or 3 feet behind Officers Russ and Smith. There were no seats on either side of them at the bar. Later that evening, Brenda delivered two joints of marijuana to Officer Russ. The joints were again rolled up in a napkin which Officer Russ did not open. Officer Ruff offered to pay Brenda for the marijuana and she refused to accept payment. This evening, the lounge was almost full and had approximately 100 patrons. There were three bartenders and two doormen on duty in the lounge. The napkins received from Brenda contained two rolled marijuana cigarettes containing 1.5 grams of Marijuana. No other employee participated in the drug transfer and the conversation about drugs was in a soft, low tone of voice. Officer Russ next returned to the licensed premises on November 18, 1983. He went to the lounge along an arrived at approximately 6:40 p.m. There were about 50 patrons in the lounge and Officer Russ took a seat at the back bar where Brenda was working. Of the approximately 50 patrons in the lounge about half of the patrons were in the back area. While seated at the bar, Officer Russ met Larry Mallon. During the conversation, Officer Russ told Mallon that he was looking for some marijuana. Mallon told him he had some and took a clear plastic baggie out of his right coat pocket and handed it to Russ. The marijuana was handed to Officer Russ just below the padded area of the bar. The transfer could have been seen by other persons in the lounge but was not visible to someone behind the bar. The plastic baggie contained 1.1 grams of marijuana. Russ did not pay Mallon for the marijuana. While seated at the bar, Russ also purchased 1 gram of cocaine from Mellon for $75. Mellon took the packet of cocaine from his right coat pocket and handed it to Russ. Russ then placed $80 on the bar and Mallon picked it up and handed him $5 in change. The cocaine transaction took place just as Officer Russ was about to leave the licensed premises. There was an employee present behind the bar approximately three (3) feet from Russ and Mallon when the drugs were transferred but Russ could not say whether the employee was looking at them or not. On this particular evening, Russ had no discussions about drugs with employees of the licensed premises. He left the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. Officer Russ had never met Larry Mallon. Officer Russ, along with Officer Smith, was next in the licensed premises on November 30, 1983. They entered the lounge at approximately 8:40 p.m. and took the same two seats at the same area of the bar where they had sat on the previous visit. Brenda was working behind the bar and Russ asked her if she had any amphetamines or uppers. She said she believed she-did have some and would look and see. Later, Brenda gave Officer Russ 2 tablets which she said were speed, but testing revealed they were not a controlled substance. He also asked Brenda if she could get some marijuana for Officer Smith. Brenda told Officer Russ that someone in the bar was selling marijuana for $100 an ounce and would break it down to quarter ounce for $30. Kathy, another bartender was present during the conversation about drugs and Brenda informed her that Officer Russ and Officer Smith were looking for some pot (marijuana) Later that evening, Officer Smith met a patron named Butch. Butch joined Officers Russ and Smith at the bar after Smith asked him across the bar about possibly obtaining marijuana. Butch told them he could get them a quarter ounce of marijuana for $30. Be said he would have to leave for about ten minutes but would return. He left and returned a short time later and stated to Officer Russ that he had the marijuana but wanted to make the transfer outside the car. Butch, Officer Russ and Officer Smith went out to the parking lot where Butch sold them 2 grams of marijuana for $30. Officers Smith and Russ returned to the lounge Russ asked Brenda if Butch could be trusted and if his marijuana was any good. She said Butch was o.k. During this conversation, a patron named Jim Bob was present. This particular evening, the lounge was crowded and loud music was playing. There were seven employees on duty in the lounge that night. While in the lounge, Officer Russ observed Brenda with a handful of red tablets and also observed a motorcycle gang type individual smoking what smelled like marijuana on the deck outside the back entrance of the lounge. Officer Russ next visited the licensed premises on December 3, 1983. Russ went to the lounge alone and sat at the bar where Brenda and Kathy were working. He began conversing with Brenda and Kathy and asked Kathy if she knew anyone he could get a quarter of an ounce of marijuana from. Kathy said she would look around and twice during the evening came back to Officer Russ and told him she was still looking. During the evening, Officer Russ also spoke to Butch and asked him if he was holding any drugs. Butch said he was not but that he should check the back porch, that there was someone usually smoking marijuana back there. Officer Russ did not obtain any drugs in the licensed premises this particular evening. Accompanied by Officer Smith, Officer Russ again returned to the licensed premises on December 7, 1983. They arrived at approximately 7:30 p.m. When they arrived, Fred Dillman, Jr., was seated at the front bar talking to Brenda. Officer Russ walked up to the bar and spoke to Brenda, who in turn introduced him to Fred Dillman. Later, after Russ went to the back bar, Brenda came back to the bar and began working behind the bar. Brenda told Russ she wanted to talk to him about her cousins in Bristol. She said her cousins had some good reefer (marijuana) and that she was going over to Bristol for the weekend. She asked if Russ wanted some of the reefer. Brenda initiated this conversation about drugs. While Russ was talking with Brenda, Larry Mellon was standing nearby. After Russ talked with Brenda, Larry Mellon began talking with him about the coke he had given him. Russ told Mellon he wanted to buy some reefer and Smith kept saying she wanted to buy coke. Russ told Mellon he wanted to buy $60 worth of reefer. Mellon then left the lounge with another man and moments later Mellon returned and handed a bag of marijuana to Russ. Russ had given the $60 to Mellon at the bar. The transfer of the money was very open and at the time the transfer took place, Brenda was behind the bar nearby. The baggie which Russ received from Mellon contained 9.9 grams of marijuana. Russ did not talk with any employee other than Brenda about drugs on this particular evening. At no time during the evening did Russ observe Dillman come into the back area of the lounge where Brenda was working. On Friday, December 9, 1983 Officer Russ returned to the licensed premises. He arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. and went to the back area of the bar where Brenda was working. Officer Russ talked with Brenda about the marijuana she was going to get in Bristol and eventually he asked her if she had any speed. Brenda then took two capsules out of her purse and handed them to Officer Russ. When she retrieved the two capsules from her purse, she placed her purse on the bar and took out medicine vials. She looked in the vials until she found what she was looking for. She handed the two capsules across the bar to Officer Russ. Officer Russ had already received his drink and when he gave her the money, the only thing he received across the bar were the two capsules. The two capsules were phentermine, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Officer Russ gave Brenda $10 for the two capsules and she reluctantly accepted the money. When she took the money, Brenda said she would get the prescription refilled and share them with Officer Russ. On this particular evening, there were approximately 35 to 40 patrons in the lounge and 4 or 5 employees on duty. On December 14, 1983, Officers Russ and Smith went to the licensed premises. Brenda was working that evening and Officers Russ and Smith took seats at the bar where she was working. They talked with Brenda and Officer Russ asked her if she could get them something. Brenda then went over to a male patron seated at the bar across from Officers Russ and Smith and talked with him briefly. She reached into the man's right shirt pocket and took out a small amount of marijuana wrapped in a clear plastic material like Saran wrap. Brenda then walked over and handed the packet to Officer Russ. The packet contained .9 grams of marijuana. That same evening, Officer Russ talked with one of the doormen named Hank (aka Hank the Tank) . The conversation took place at the back wall next to the juke box. Russ asked Hank if he knew where he could get some cocaine. Hank said he would check for him. Later that evening, Hank came back to Russ and said that everyone was out but that they would be getting some the next day. There were approximately 75 patrons in the lounge this night and there were approximately 7 employees on duty. On December 16, 1983, Officer Russ returned to the licensed premises. He was accompanied by Barbara Brown, a Callaway police officer. They entered the lounge at approximately 8:25 p.m. and took seats at the beck bar where Brenda was working. There were approximately 50 to 70 patrons in the lounge and 6 employees on duty. While seated at the bar, Officer Russ talked with Brenda, who at one point placed her purse on the bar and searched through several medicine vials just as she had done on a prior occasion. She then handed Officer Russ a yellow capsule similar $0 the ones he had received before. Russ did not pay Brenda any money for the capsule. The capsule was phentermine, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. This evening, Officer Russ also spoke with a doorman or bouncer on duty named Kevin. He asked Kevin if he could get him some marijuana. Kevin said Tallahassee was dry and that he had not had a joint in 3 days. Kevin, at the time of the formal hearing, was no longer employed by the Respondent. On his next visit to the licensed premises, Officer Russ was accompanied by Officer Smith. This visit occurred on December 21, 1983. There were between 50 and 75 patrons in the lounge and 5 employees on duty. Officer Russ spoke with one of the barmaids on duty about Kevin. Russ also asked her if she knew where he could get a joint. She said she did not, and suggested he talk to Cindy the bartender at the front bar. Brenda was not working this particular evening end Cindy was working at the front and back bar. Cindy was working at the back bar at that time and Russ spoke with her about the availability of drugs. Cindy told Officer Russ that she had a friend who would be returning with some Hawaiian marijuana. Larry Mellon overheard the conversation and told Cindy and Russ that the guy she was referring to wasn't coming back but was going to Chi-Chi's and then-home. Russ then began talking with Larry Mellon and Jim Bob Kitchen joined them. During the conversation, Jim Bob handed a marijuana cigarette to Officer Smith who then handed it to Officer Russ. The exchange occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m. The marijuana cigarette looked like a rolled marijuana cigarette and contained .2 grams of marijuana. This same evening, Officer Russ was introduced by Butch (whom he had met previously) to a woman named Melinda. Officer Smith had earlier been introduced to Melinda by Butch and was told that Melinda had some marijuana to sell. Officer Russ discussed buying some marijuana from Melinda, and Russ, Smith, and Melinda then went outside the lounge to the parking lot where Melinda sold 11 grams of marijuana to Officer Russ for $30. Officer Russ had never met Melinda before. On Wednesday, December 28, 1983, Officer Russ returned to the licensed premises. Brenda was working at the back bar and Russ took a seat at that bar. Russ asked Brenda if she had gotten the marijuana in Bristol. She said she had not but that she had gotten some more pills from her doctor in Quincy. She said she had marijuana and pills in her car and that she had taken some really good cocaine earlier in the evening. Russ asked Brenda if she had any of the cocaine left and she said she did. Brenda offered to sell Russ some of the cocaine for $75. This discussion took place at the bar with Larry Mellon and Jim Bob Kitchen present. While he was seated at the bar, Brenda got her purse and went to the doorway located next to the little short bar. She took out some pill bottles and in a few moments returned to Russ and gave him an envelope. As she handed him the envelope, Brenda stated she had put the other stuff in there too. The envelope was handed across the bar in open view. The envelope contained 15 capsules of phentermine and a triangular shaped packet of cocaine. Larry Mellon was standing nearby when the transfer occurred and asked Russ what they were doing. Russ said, "Nothing." Larry then stated that he knew what they were doing and that he had seen money change hands and had seen the envelope. After he received the envelope, Russ again asked Brenda about getting some marijuana. Brenda then left the bar through the front door and returned shortly through the same door with a brown bag in her hand. She handed the bag to Officer Russ who then put the bag in his beck pocket. The bag contained .2 grams of marijuana. On January 4, 1984, Officer Russ went to the licensed premises alone. When he arrived, there were very few patrons in the bar and Brenda was seated at the back bar with her feet up. The other bartender, Kathy, was also present. Officer Russ talked with Brenda and Kathy and jokingly asked Kathy if she would like to run a couple of lines of cocaine on the bar. Be also asked Brenda if she had been to Bristol yet. Brenda responded she had but not far enough to get the marijuana. Cindy came back from the front bar and spoke to Brenda, and Russ asked Cindy if her friend with the Hawaiian stuff had come back. Cindy responded, "No." Brenda brought up the subject of pills and placed her purse on the bar end looked at several medicine vials. She took some pills out of one of the vials and placed them in a napkin and handed the napkin to Russ. Russ told Kathy that Brenda had just given him some speed and did she want some. Brenda responded by saying, "Kathy wants coke." Russ then told Cindy that Brenda had given him some speed end did she want to go outside and have some. There were a total of four employees on duty in the lounge this night. There were no doormen working. There were approximately 20 patrons in the lounge. The ten white capsules which Officer Russ received from Brenda were methyephenidate a Schedule II controlled substance under Florida law. Officer Russ's lest visit to the licensed premises was on January 6, 1984. Russ entered the lounge alone and as he entered, he spoke -with Kathy, Cindy and another bartender named Pam. Russ went to the back bar where Brenda was working. He obtained some pills from Brenda. These pills were handed across the bar to Russ and were not in any type of container. Prior to this transfer, Russ had been talking to a patron named Bucky about drugs and pills. As she handed Russ the pills, Brenda stated that she did not have anything to put them in and that she was going to take one herself. Russ told her to give Bucky one and she did. Russ then gave Brenda $20 and told her that she could get the prescription refilled and share them with him. Russ left the licensed premises about 8:55 p.m. and as he was leaving, he spoke to the two doormen. He first asked them where Hank was and they said, "Osceola Hall." Russ then told them that he had just gotten some speed and that he was going outside to take some. The two doormen just laughed. Neither of them asked him to leave. Mr. Fred Dillman was observed in the licensed premises on only one of the 14 evenings Officer Russ was in the lounge. Sometime in October, Mr. Dillman injured his hand and lost a finger in an accident on his farm. Because of this injury he was in the lounge less than he normally would have been in November and December. Mr. Leonard Coffee is the manager of the licensed premises. He manages Fred's Back Door Lounge and another lounge owned by the Respondents. He has worked as manager for 11 or 12 years and has worked in the liquor business off and on since 1955. He divides his work hours between Fred's Back Door Lounge and the other lounge he manages. Mr. Coffee was never informed by any employee that Brenda was dealing drugs in the lounge. It was not established how much of the manager's time is spent in each lounge. Mr. Coffee testified that he instructed all employees to call the police then report to them if they saw anyone with drugs in the lounge. However, only one of three bartenders who testified recalled having been instructed to report drug problems to the manager. Several employees had been approached about drugs and did not report this information to the manager or the owner. One employee, Walter Humphries, had detected a strange odor in the lounge on prior occasions and hand thrown out people in the area of the odor. On one of his visits, Officer Russ also smelled what he considered to he marijuana smoke inside the lounge. There was no clear policy established or communicated to the employees as to what they were to do if they detected drugs being used or sold on the licensed premises. Mr. Coffee testified that he told the employees to call the police end inform him if there were any drugs detected on the licensed premises. However, the employees were not aware of this policy and did not follow the policy. There were no instructions given to employees regarding the detection of drugs and what they should look for in observing and supervising the licensed premises. There were no regular employee meetings where problems or potential problems in the lounge such as drugs were discussed. At the time each employee is hired, they are interviewed and are asked for prior work references. They are not required to fill out an application and are not asked whether they use drugs. No signs were observed in the lounge prohibiting the use or possession of drugs. Approximately two years ago, Respondent, Fred Dillman, 11, was informed by his attorney that the District Beverage Captain had received information that Brenda was selling drugs at the licensed premises. Mr. Dillman confronted Brenda with this information and she denied any involvement with drugs. Brenda, at that time, had been a good employee without any problems at work for seven years. He did not terminate Brenda but asked Mr. Coffee and another employee, Mr. Poulis, to keep an eye on Brenda. Mr. Poulis works in the liquor store from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and then works in the lounge until closing time at 2:00 a.m. Prior to his accident in October, Mr. Dillman was in the lounge more at night. Mr. Dillman's father and mother do not go-to the lounge at night. The patrons of the lounge are almost entirely college age. Mr. Dillman had received information that patrons were smoking marijuana on the back deck of the lounge and that the bikers were dealing drugs on the deck. Approximately one month ago, he instructed his bartenders to stop serving the bikers. Mr. Dillman was aware that drugs were likely to be present in a primarily college age crowd. Fred's Back Door Lounge has a reputation in the community as an establishment where drugs could be obtained. The Respondents do not approve of or condone use of drugs in the licensed premises or elsewhere. Neither the Respondents nor the manager, Mr. Coffee, were aware that Brenda was selling drugs on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of the violations as set forth above and suspending the Respondent's license for a period of 90 days and impose a civil penalty of $10,000. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 24th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Judkins, Esquire P.O. Box 10368 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marion D. Lamb, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1778 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondents' beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting their licensed premises to be used for the purpose of prostitution and for gaining profit from that prostitution. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses, Beverly Fraley, Alfred Stone, and Raphael Grulau. The Respondents presented no evidence. The Petitioner offered and had admitted over the objection of the Respondent, one tape recording of conversations which occurred inside the licensed premises as a part of the undercover investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as being unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Katherine J. and Guy H. Sutton were the holders of a valid, current beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. This license was issued to a licensed premises called Guy's Tavern located on Highway 301, South, in Riverview, Florida. On May 12, 1983, Detective Beverly Fraley of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity. On this particular evening, Detective Fraley was accompanied by two other detectives of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in a backup capacity. Prior to entering the licensed premises, Detective Fraley was fitted with a body bug for the purpose of recording any conversations that she might have in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation. When Officer Fraley arrived, the two backup detectives were inside the licensed premises shooting pool. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Fraley went to the bar and ordered a drink. After obtaining her drink, she was approached by a white male, who called himself "Stogie." While talking with Stogie, another white male, who called himself "Turkey" approached Officer Fraley from behind and placed his arms around her. She had never met Turkey before. Officer Fraley pushed Turkey away and said "Keep your hands off the merchandise." Shortly after her encounter with Turkey, Officer Fraley began shooting pool with Stogie and the two undercover detectives. After a short time, she left the licensed premises with Detective Grulau and after a few minutes the two of them reentered the licensed premises. After reentering, Officer Fraley went to the ladies' rest room and when she came out, she was called over to the bar area by the owner, Guy Sutton, who was behind the bar. As Officer Fraley approached the bar, Mr. Sutton stated, "If you're going to fuck here you've got to pay me." Officer Fraley asked what he meant and he told her that she would have to pay him $5.00 for every trick" she took out of the bar. "Trick" is a slang or street term used to describe an act of prostitution. Mr. Sutton then identified himself as the owner and said that the other women in the bar also paid. Officer Fraley then gave Mr. Sutton a $5 bill. After paying Mr. Sutton, Officer Fraley turned to the bartender, Irene Springer, who was present during this conversation and asked if in fact the other women in the bar were required to pay. Irene Springer stated that the other women in the bar did in fact have to pay $5.00 per trick and a group of white females sitting at a table near the bar responded, "That's right honey." Later that evening, Officer Fraley left with the other undercover detective. When they returned, Guy Sutton was in the pool room area. Officer Fraley intentionally did not go over to Sutton. Shortly after she returned, Sutton came over to her and told her that she owed him another $5.00. He then told her that she would be better off paying him $25.00 per week rather than $5.00 per trick. He also stated that she had the potential to make $300 or $400 per week in his place. Guy's Tavern has a reputation in the community as a bar where prostitutes can be picked up.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondents' beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 30th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulations of the parties, the documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ceola Virginia Cutliff is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-06844, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Night Shift, located at 6704 N.W. 18th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On or about September 18, 1987, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) Investigators R. Campbell, R. Thompson and C. Houston entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics task force investigation. An individual named "Frances" was on duty at the bar. The investigators observed Frances sell what appeared to be narcotics to several patrons on the licensed premises. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigator Houston approached Frances and asked to purchase narcotics. Frances and Investigator Houston then went to the rear of the bar where Frances sold 2 pieces of "crack" cocaine to Investigator Houston for $10.00. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Investigator Campbell asked Frances if he could purchase narcotics. Frances presented a piece of rock cocaine which Investigator Campbell purchased for $5.00. This transaction took place in plain view of other individuals in the licensed premises. Frances, upon making a sale, would take the money and give it to a black male called "Spider" a/k/a Arthur Dorsey. Spider would then retain the money. On September 19, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. On duty that night, was a black female known as "Josephine". Spider was also on the licensed premises positioned in the D.J.'s booth, apparently trying to fix a speaker. Houston and Thompson had observed a black male, named "Gary", exchanging an unknown substance for money with various individuals, immediately outside the licensed premises. Gary, upon receiving money in exchange for the unknown substance, would go into the licensed premises and hand the money to Spider. Later that evening, Investigator Houston noticed that Spider had a brown paper bag in his hand. Gary and Spider proceeded to the bathroom on the licensed premises. After exiting the bathroom, Gary left the premises and Spider went behind the bar and began counting a large amount of money onto the counter of the bar. Spider placed the money in his back pocket. Investigator Thompson then inquired whether Spider could sell him some crack cocaine. Spider acknowledged that he could and proceeded with Thompson to the rear of the bar, where Spider sold Thompson 20 pieces of rock cocaine for $100.00. On September 22, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. Bartender Josephine-was on duty at that time along with another black female known as "Niecey". When the investigators inquired as to the whereabouts of Spider, Niecey replied that "he went home to cook up the stuff because they were very low on supply." Niecey reiterated the above statement on numerous occasions when individuals would enter the bar searching for Spider. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Spider appeared on the licensed premises with a brown paper bag in his possession. Patrons that had been waiting outside the premises came inside and Niecey locked the doors to the front and rear exits of the bar. Spider went to the D.J.'s booth and pbured the contents of the paper bag onto the counter inside the booth. The bag contained approximately 200 small zip-lock bags containing suspected crack cocaine. The patrons who had been waiting outside for the arrival of Spider then proceeded to line up in front of the D.J.'s booth in order to make purchases. Niecey would take the money from the individual patrons and Spider would deliver the crack cocaine. Investigator Houston got in line and upon arriving at the booth, purchased 20 packets of crack cocaine from Spider in exchange for $100.00. These transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On September 23, 1987, Investigators Houston, Thompson and Campbell entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The barmaid on duty was Josephine. Spider was positioned in the D.J.'s booth making sales to patrons of what appeared to be crack cocaine. Investigator Campbell walked over to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase ten (10) pieces of crack cocaine from Spider. Approximately 200 zip-lock packets of suspected crack cocaine were positioned in front of Spider. Spider motioned for Campbell" to pick them out." Campbell then picked out ten (10) packets in exchange for $50.00 which he gave to Spider. This transaction occurred in plain view of other individuals on the licensed premises. Before leaving Spider went behind the bar, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, placed it inside his pants and exited the premises. On September 29, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The bartender on duty was Josephine. Shortly after the investigators arrived, Spider appeared on the premises and went behind the bar where he took a pistol from inside his pants and placed it under the bar counter. Spider then removed a brown paper bag from under the bar counter and went to the D.J. s booth. Investigator Thompson proceeded to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine. Spider reached into the bag and gave Investigator Thompson two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Investigator Campbell approached an unknown black male who Campbell had seen selling narcotics on prior occasions. Campbell made inquiries relative to the purchase of cocaine and the unknown black male indicated that he could sell Campbell crack cocaine. The unknown male then gave two five dollar ($5.00) pieces of crack cocaine to Investigator Campbell in exchange for $10.00. This transaction took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Shortly after the investigators arrived, they observed Spider on the premises selling crack cocaine to patrons from the D.J.'s booth. Subsequently, Investigator Thompson went to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine. In response thereto, Spider left the licensed premises and proceeded to a pickup truck parked outside. Spider then retrieved a brown paper bag from the vehicle, returned to Investigator Thompson and handed him twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent licensee admitted to being an absentee owner. The Respondent did not maintain payroll, employment or other pertinent business records. The licensee was aware that drugs were a major problem in the area surrounding the premises and that drug transactions were known to take place immediately outside of the licensed premises. The licensee did nothing to prevent the incursion of narcotics trafficking onto the licensed premises. The licensee, CeoIa Cutliff, is engaged to Arthur Dorsey. Ms. Cutliff gave Mr. Dorsey a key to the premises and knew or should have known that he was operating in the capacity of a manager on the licensed premises. Josephine, the bartender generally on duty, referred to Mr. Dorsey as "boss man" and Mr. Dorsey directed her activities in the licensed premises. Mr. Dorsey a/k/a Spider utilized the licensed premises as if they were his own and was operating in the capacity of a manager at the Club Night Shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's beverage license 23-06844, Series 2-COP, located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4482 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 2. (Petitioner has two paragraphs numbered 2) Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10, 11 & 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted). COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Scott Boundy, Esquire 901 E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Daniel Bosanko Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristides, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and 23- 8295, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. In March 1988, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), in conjunction with the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD), began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. Previously, Sergeant Tom Hunker and Detective Walter Campbell of the MBPD had made several drug arrests at the licensed premises, and had warned the owners to stop such activities on their premises or their licenses would be subject to revocation. On March 8, 1988, DABT Investigator Oscar Santana, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, he observed a male patron known as Junior sell what appeared to be rock cocaine to several persons both on and off the licensed premises. After observing the foregoing transactions, Investigator Santana approached Junior and asked him if he had any more to sell. In response, Junior handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks, for which Santana paid Junior $20. This transaction occurred in plan view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. 1/ On March 9, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering, Santana was approached by Junior who inquired as to whether he would be interested in purchasing some more cocaine. Santana responded affirmatively, and handed Junior $20. Junior then left the premises for a short time, and when he returned handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks. This transaction occurred at the counter, and in plain view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. After the foregoing transaction, Investigator Santana was approached by another patron known as Paul, who inquired whether he would be interested in buying some cocaine. Santana agreed to buy from Paul if he brought it to the licensed premises. Paul left the premises, returned shortly thereafter, and met Santana just outside the door. At that time, Santana paid Paul $30 in exchange for two crack cocaine rocks. During the course of this transaction, respondents' employees Ricky and Gonzalo were nearby. On March 10, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, Santana met with a patron known as Charlie, who offered to sell him some cocaine. Santana handed Charlie $20 and observed him leave the premises, walk across the street, and hand the money to another individual. Shortly thereafter, Charlie returned to the licensed premises and delivered the cocaine rocks to Santana. The exchange between Santana and Charlie took place in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employee Nene. On March 17, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Also on the premises that day were DABT Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, operating separately from Santana to provide backup for him. As he entered the premises, Santana seated himself with Junior and respondents' employee Ricky at a table by the front door. There, in front of Ricky, Santana purchased a cocaine rock from Junior for $20. Ricky, suspicious of Jenkins and Elkin, two female non-latins, warned Santana to be careful because the two females were police officers. On March 18, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, again operating separately from Santana, were also on the premises that day. Upon entering the premises, Santana was approached by a patron known as Reyna who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana responded yes, handed Reyna $25, and Reyna left the premises. After Reyna left the premises, Santana seated himself at the front table. When Reyna returned, she sat down at the table with him and delivered, above the table, two cocaine rocks. This transaction took place in front of respondents' employee Ricky, who again warned Santana to beware of the police officers (Investigators Jenkins and Elkin). Later that day, Santana gave Junior $20 to purchase cocaine for him. When Junior delivered the rock cocaine to Santana it was done in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. During the course of this visit to the premises, Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, also undercover, were seated separately from Santana. At some point they were joined by a male patron who later gave them two marijuana cigarettes. The investigators retired to the women's bathroom and burnt a marijuana cigarette to see what, if any, response it would bring. While one of respondents' employees entered the bathroom after they left, the aroma of marijuana brought no response. On March 21, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry, Santana, respondents' employee Gonzalo, and two black latin male patrons were the only persons present. These patrons approached Santana and inquired if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Santana responded yes, and paid the men $20 for approximately one ounce of marijuana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of Gonzalo. On March 24, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit he met with Junior inside the bathroom, and purchased two cocaine rocks for $40. On March 25, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Santana was approached by Junior who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana handed Junior $40, and Junior left the premises to get the cocaine. Upon his return, Junior placed the cocaine rocks on the counter in front of Santana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. All of the events summarized in the proceeding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondents' employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that all of the employees knew that marijuana and cocaine were being sold on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent and flagrant basis. Neither respondents, who were on notice of such activities, nor any of their employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale of any controlled substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and alcoholic beverage license number 23-8295, series 2-COP, issued to Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristid d/b/a Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, for the premises located at 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael G. Mandeville, d/b/a The Sugar Shack (Mandeville), is licensed under the Beverage Law, license number 27-1311, series 2-COP, for the premises known as The Sugar Shack located at 11 East Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Mandeville has operated The Sugar Shack at that location under that license from July 1985 through the emergency suspension of the license and closing of the business on January 16, 1986. Previously, Mandeville was President, Secretary and Treasurer and 100 percent stockholder of Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., a licensee under the Beverage Law. On February 1, 1984, Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., entered into a Stipulation with Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), settling a Notice To Show Cause containing eight counts of solicitation of drinks and one count of conspiring to deliver a controlled substance. At the time, the licensee, Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., was doing business as The Sugar Shack at 720 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. Earlier the licensee Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., was doing business as Someplace Else at Highway 29 and Roberts Road in Pensacola, Florida. Mandeville was its Secretary and Treasurer and owned half of the stock issued by the corporate licensee. On July 29, 1982, the licensee Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Someplace Else, entered into a Stipulation with the Division settling a Notice To Show Cause containing twelve counts of solicitation of drinks and five counts of delivering a controlled substance. In the short time Mandeville's current license was being operated, he was aware of drug problems on the premises. Problems of this sort in approximately September 1985 caused Mandeville to be in contact with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, Narcotics Division. In order to help himself, Mandeville agreed to cooperate with the Sheriff's Office. Although Mandeville told officers in the Sheriff's Narcotics Division that he personally knew no drug users on the premises, he would have a part-time employed disk jockey named Darrel Able, who might have information, contact the Narcotics Division. Mandeville and his staff also had to fire several employees on suspicion of drugs, including a dancer named Margie. The Sugar Shack's premises consist of one large major room with a separate room for playing pool, separate dressing rooms, and men and ladies restrooms. The licensed, premises contain two stages for topless dancing performances, a booth for the disk jockeys and a large bar. It is not possible to see into the dressing rooms from the main room, from the bar or from the disk jockey booth. It is not possible to see the room containing the pool tables from the main room, the disk jockey booth, or the bar. Within the licensed premises, there are many tables where customers sit. During business hours of The Sugar Shack, there are topless dancers performing to loud music. Because of the loud music, it is difficult to hear normal conversations even among those sitting at one of the various tables in the licensed premises. Mandeville employs several people to assist him in the operation and maintenance of The Sugar Shack. During most of the business day, Mandeville is present at the licensed premises. When Mandeville is not present, his brother Steve is in charge of the licensed premises. When Steve Mandeville is not present, the assistant manager and doorman Russell Sapp is in the licensed premises and supervises them. When Sapp is not present, John Chiarito, an employed disk jockey, manages the licensed premises and supervises them. For most of the day, two or three of these people are present in the licensed premises and serve in a supervisory capacity. Additionally, Mandeville employs a day bartender named Helen Mabie, who functions in a supervisory capacity. Mandeville also employs other personnel including bartenders and waitresses who are in the licensed premises during business hours and are supposed to inform management of any violations of laws and rules they suspect. Mandeville himself is present at the licensed premises for approximately eight hours a day at various times between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Mandeville generally supervises the overall business operations of The Sugar Shack, including the hiring and firing of employees. Since Mandeville opened the licensed premises, he has announced a policy applicable to all employees prohibiting the possession of drugs in the licensed premises and the solicitation of drinks by employees. Generally, all employees, especially dancers, are required to sign statements agreeing to the policies. Rules implementing the policies are posted prominently in several locations within the licensed premises including the dancers' dressing rooms. However, the signs contain statements like: "there's a time & place for everything, please think before making your move"; "they are watching you know the law, they know you"; and "the law has the right to walk in this dressing room at any given second keep yourself & your friends out of trouble." Although the overall message of the signs and policies prohibit drugs and drink solicitation, the above unfortunately phrased parts of the signs might tend to imply a management attitude that those activities are acceptable as long as no employees are caught doing them. Mandeville has made it known to his employees that violation of the prohibition against drugs would result in termination, supposedly without giving anybody a second chance. Mandeville and his management staff have in fact fired several employees for violation of the prohibition against drugs on the licensed premises: Toni for smoking marijuana in the dressing room; Nicki for possession of prescription drugs not in a bottle; Margie for using and selling cocaine; and Nicole for suspicion of selling cocaine. According to Mandeville, even suspicion of violating the drug prohibition will result in termination, and there is not supposed to be a second chance for anyone. However, Margie was rehired after being terminated for violating the drug prohibition. In addition, Mandeville did not fire Margie a second time before his license was suspended and did not fire another dancer named Nicole until the first week of January 1986 although he suspected both of them of selling cocaine as early as December 19, 1985, when an undercover Escambia County Sheriff's Office narcotics deputy posing as a patron told him that Nicole had sold the deputy cocaine. Mandeville also made it known to his employees that patrons were supposed to be asked to leave the premises if they violated drug laws on the premises. If such a patron refused to leave, either they were to be forced to leave or law enforcement was to be notified. However, Mandeville did not ask the undercover deputy to leave on December 19, 1985, although the undercover deputy told Mandeville that he had bought cocaine from Nicole. Similarly, the same undercover deputy was not asked to leave by an employee named Sophia on December 27, 1985, when the deputy told Sophia that he had bought cocaine from Nicole. Mandeville or his managements staff conducts periodic unannounced searches of the dancers' lockers. These searches are conducted in the dancers' presence. Refusal to permit a locker search is grounds for termination, and two employees, one a dancer named Connie, were fired for refusal to allow a locker search. According to Mandeville, his management staff is supposed to periodically review with the employees the rules prohibiting drugs and drink solicitation. However, Mandeville does not follow up on the performance of his management staff and several understand their obligation to be only to go over the rules with the employees when one of the employees violates the rules. Only Dwight Sparks, the Sunday night manager, goes over the rules each night he works. Violation of the rule against drink solicitation, when detected, is supposed to result in termination. But there was no evidence that any employee has been fired for drink solicitation. Enforcement of this policy is not as strict as enforcement of the policy against drugs on the premises. Mandeville does not require his employees to subject themselves to a polygraph lie detector examination. He asks prospective employees for an oral history of employment but does not get it in writing and does not check the validity or quality of the references. Mandeville does not check for arrest records of his employees. On December 3, 1985, Officer Zeka of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity posing as a patron. Within minutes of entering the premises, Zeka was able to buy five capsules of cocaine from the employed dancer Nicole. Nicole and Zeka were sitting back to back in adjoining booths when the transaction took place. Nicole reached over the waist high back of the booths and placed the capsules on Zeka's table in exchange for $50. Because of the loud music, dark lighting, relatively cluttered table and the topless dancing performances attracting attention elsewhere, the transaction would have been difficult for anyone to detect who was not paying attention and trying to detect a drug transaction even though the transaction was not completely concealed. Zeka quickly counted the capsules and put them in his pocket. On December 4, 1985, Zeka bought from Nicole another three capsules of cocaine in a clear cellophane cigarette package wrapper for $50. The circumstances of the transaction were essentially the same as on December 3. Later on December 4, 1985, Zeka bought from Nicole another five capsules of cocaine for $50. The circumstances of this transaction also were the same as on December 3. As on December 3, Nicole placed the capsules on the table in front of Zeka who counted them and put them in his pocket. On December 5, 1985, Zeka again bought from Nicole five capsules of cocaine. Again, the circumstances were essentially the same as on December 3. As on December 3, Nicole placed the capsules on the table in front of Zeka who counted them and put them in his pocket. On December 26, 1985, Zeka was in the licensed premises and asked employed dancer Margie to sell him some cocaine. At first Margie was unable to because "her man," i.e., her source of drugs, was not around. Later she walked over to and embraced "her man," Darrel Able, who slipped a clear plastic bag containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine into the back of her g-string type panties. Margie returned to the table and put the bag on the table between Zeka and another undercover officer named Lewis. Somehow the bag opened, and some cocaine spilled on the table. Margie suggested they "do a line" from the cocaine spilled on the table and took a straw out of one of the glasses on the table. When Zeka and Lewis affected to warn her not to be so open about it in order to preserve their cover, Margie told them not to worry because it was done all the time. However, it was not proved that Margie was not either joking or intoxicated, and no credence can be given to her statement that cocaine was used at the tables in the licensed premises. As before, the licensed premises were dark and noisy at the time and the attention was directed to the dance stage. Although the transaction was not completely concealed it still would not have been easy to detect. On December 27, 1985, an employed dancer named June openly handed Lewis a marijuana cigarette she said she had been given as a tip and invited Lewis to smoke it outside. Again, although June made no attempt to conceal what she was doing, it would have been difficult to detect exactly what she was doing and that she had a marijuana cigarette. Also on December 27, 1985, Zeka asked employed dancer Nicole to sell him some more cocaine. Nicole had none and had to leave the licensed premises to obtain some. She put on her street clothes, left, returned and handed Zeka four capsules of cocaine in a concealed manner. On December 31, 1985, a man named John Carroll sold cocaine to Zeka's confidential informant twice within 20 minutes. Both times the confidential informant walked over to Carroll, who was standing by the bar. The first time Mandeville himself was seated five bar stools away from Carroll. Both times the confidential informant persuaded Carroll to sell the cocaine, reached into his front shirt pocket to get the cocaine and returned to Zeka who was approximately 15 feet away. In a concealed manner, the cocaine was handed to Zeka, who held the clear plastic bag containing the cocaine up by the corner, looked at it and placed it in his pocket. Again, although Mandeville was in a position to see the first transaction if he had been paying attention and watching for it, the evidence did not prove that he actually saw the transaction. It was not proved that Carroll was an employee, as opposed to a patron, of Mandeville. On January 13, 1985, Lewis bought a half gram of cocaine from employed dancer Margie for $50. Margie delivered the cocaine in a concealed manner that would have avoided any detection. In addition to the activity involving controlled substances described above, Mandeville's employees on numerous occasions solicited drinks from Lewis as follows: Sophia December 19, 1985 Liz December 19, 1985 Angela December 19, 1985 Debbie December 19, 1985 Candy December 30, 1985 Judy December 30, 1985 Chastity December 30, 1985 Candy December 30, 1985 Margie December 26, 1985 June December 27, 1985 Cindy December 27, 1985 Candy December 27, 1985 Peggy December 27, 1985 Mandeville never asked the Division for assistance in, or suggestions for, supervising the licensed premises so as to control or eliminate illegal drug violations and drink solicitations. Rather, the evidence is that Mandeville offered to cooperate with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to "help himself and them" in September 1985 and later in late December 1985 or early January 1986. In essence, as previously mentioned, Mandeville put the Sheriff's Office in contact with Darrell Able and, on one occasion in early January 1986, telephoned the Sheriff's Office to relate that Able supposedly thought he was going to be able to set up a drug deal for the Sheriff's Office. Neither Mandeville nor Able ever re-contacted the Sheriff's Office. Weighing the totality of the evidence, it is found that Mandeville did not supervise the premises and his employees in a reasonably diligent manner under the circumstances. Mandeville was aware from past experience of the problem of drugs in an establishment like the licensed premises in general and in the licensed premises themselves in particular. Mandeville announced adequate policies and placed some management techniques in effect to implement the policies. However, Mandeville did not adequately follow up and did not know that his staff was not following all of the techniques. They were not, for example, regularly reviewing the rules prohibiting drugs and drink solicitation with the employees, and the employees did not understand that they were to report all suspicion of violation of the rules by both employees and patrons to the management. Mandeville himself failed to follow his own procedures by rehiring Margie and failing to fire Margie and Nicole immediately upon receiving information or knowledge of their drug use and dealing at least by December 19, 1985. Not only did Mandeville and his staff not follow all the procedures that he had in place, Mandeville did not seek the assistance and suggestions of the Division for additional management techniques. He did not improve the lighting in the licensed premises, did not polygraph his employees and did not check the background of prospective employees. A combination of the laxity of Mandeville and his staff in enforcing the procedures he had in place and Mandeville's failure to adopt more effective available procedures that he should have known were required under the circumstances proximately caused the employee violations on the premises. As for the drink solicitation violations, Mandeville's written policy against drink solicitation appears to be more honored in the breach. In addition to the thirteen violations within eleven days charged in this case, the two previous notices to show cause against a licensee in which Mandeville had substantial interest and control contained a total of twenty counts of drink solicitation which were settled by stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Alcoholic Beverage License Number 27-1311, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Michael G. Mandeville, d/b/a The Sugar Shack, 11 Eastfair field Drive, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, on all the grounds alleged in the Notice To Show Cause in this case except paragraphs (1)g. and (2)g. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0203 Rulings On Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Covered by Finding 1. 2.-5. Covered by Findings 16.-19., respectively. 6. Covered by Finding 10. 7.-8. Covered by Findings 20-21, respectively. 9. Covered by Finding 11. 10-11. Covered by Findings 22-23., respectively. Covered by Finding 25. Rejected as cumulative. Covered by Finding 26. 15-16. Covered by Findings 2-3., respectively. Covered by Finding 27. Covered by Findings 8-14. 19-20. Covered by Findings 6, 10 and 13, to the extent necessary. Covered by Findings 8 and 10, to the extent necessary. Whether Mandeville has fired June is irrelevant since the Sugar Shack has been closed since the license was suspended. Covered by Finding 13. Covered by Findings 23 and 24. Covered by Findings 4, 7, and 27. Rulings On Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Covered by Finding 1. 2-4. Covered by Findings 5-7, respectively. 5. Covered by Findings 15, 8, and 9, to the extent necessary. 6-9. Covered by Finding 10, to the extent necessary. (The evidence was not clear exactly who fired the various employees but that is not necessary or relevant). 10. Covered by Finding 1. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural history. 14-17. Covered by Findings 16-19., respectively. 18. Covered by Findings 11 and 28. (There was no persuasive evidence that Mandeville "conducted an investigation concerning the activities of Nicole" or "obtained additional information" or that Mandeville fired Nicole "as soon as the Respondent verified this information"). 19-22. Covered by Findings 20-23, respectively. Covered by Finding 23. Rejected as not proven by the weight of the totality of the evidence. See Finding 11. Also, he certainly would not have been in trouble if caught by Nicole, Margie or June. Covered by Finding 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 27-37. Covered by Finding 26, to the extent necessary. 38-40. Rejected as incomprehensible. See also paragraphs 41-49. below. 41-49. Covered by Findings 8-14. There was no evidence that any employee ever has been fired for solicitation of drinks. The evidence was not clear which individual or group of individuals actually fired all of the individuals listed in Finding 10. Their identity is not necessary or relevant. 50. Covered by Findings 8, 13. and 14. 51-52. Covered by Finding 12. (There was only evidence that two employees were fired for refusing to allow a locker search). Covered by Findings 4 and 27. Accepted and covered by Finding 23 and the absence 55.Accepted and covered by the absence of any finding that they did. Covered by Findings 16-23. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58-59. Accepted and covered by the absence of any finding that they did. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra P. Stockwell, Esouire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Griffith, Esguire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronugh Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
