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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th day of May, 1976, Mary Lener Arnold, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else to have unlawfully in their possession on Mary Lener Arnold's licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold, t/a Buggs' Drive Inn, held on May 14, 1976 and now holds beverage license no. 50-2 series 1-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This licensed premises is located on Main Street, Greenville, Florida. On May 14, 1976, a confidential informant with the Division of Beverage went to the licensed premise of the Respondent in Greenville, Florida and purchased a bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted under a 1-COP license. This confidential informant was working for officer B.C. Maxwell of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Officer Maxwell along with other officers with the Division of Beverage and officers of the Madison County, Sheriff's office returned to the licensed premises on May 14, 1976 and in looking through the licensed premises found a black bag containing 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka on the licensed premises. This Smirnoff Vodka was not permissible on the licensed premises under a 1-COP license. On the licensed premises at the time of the inspection was one Patsy Jackson Williams who indicated that she was in charge of the premises. The confidential informant who had purchased the bottle of alcoholic beverage indicated that his purchase had been made from the same Patsy Jackson Williams. The black bag with its contents of 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. The alcoholic beverage purchased by the confidential informant is Petitioner's Exhibit #4 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days based upon the charge proven in the hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mary Lener Arnold t/a Buggs' Drive Inn Main Street Greenville, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact Although there was a detailed evidentiary presentation at the hearing, there was no real disagreement between the parties on the essential facts: Petitioner's husband is disqualified to hold a beverage license on account of a previous felony conviction. He has invested a substantial sum in Ye Olde English Pub, including the real estate that houses the business. Petitioner failed to disclose her husband's interest on forms submitted to respondent in connection with her application to transfer a beverage license to her from the bar's former owner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for license transfer. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Allen, Esquire 417 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 26th day of May, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner may discipline Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for Respondent’s violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(D) and Section 561.20(4) “within” 561.29(1)(a),1/ Florida Statutes, on three separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to un-refuted testimony, Respondent, MJT Restaurant Group, Inc., doing business as The Copper Pot, holds Beverage License 5202697, Series 4 COP, SRX.3/ Respondent’s establishment is located in Ocala, Florida. It is divided into two separate interior rooms, with two separate exterior entrances. The two rooms are connected through the interior by a single opening between one room, which is the main restaurant area, and a second room, which is the bar/lounge. A complaint was opened against Respondent with a warning letter issued by Investigative Specialist Melodi Brewton on March 15, 2007. The Administrative Complaint that was ultimately filed in this case addresses only the dates of April 7, 2007, June 17, 2007, and July 20, 2007. On April 7, 2007, Special Agents Angel Rosado and Lawrence Perez visited Respondent’s premises in an undercover capacity at approximately 11:00 p.m. On that date, the restaurant’s exterior door was closed and locked, but the lounge’s exterior door was open. The agents entered through the lounge’s exterior door and observed patrons consuming alcohol and listening to a band in the bar area. The agents requested a menu from the bartender. The bartender told them the kitchen was closed. Each agent then ordered a beer, and a sealed alcoholic beer bottle was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid inside his container had been alcoholic beer. The agents testified that they had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A chain of custody was maintained and a sample vial of the beer served by Respondent on Tuesday, April 7, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.4/ On June 16, 2007, Special Agent Rosado and Special Agent Lawrence Perez visited The Copper Pot at approximately 11:30 p.m. The outside restaurant door was not locked, but the lights were off inside the restaurant room where chairs were stacked on the tables. The agents observed patrons in the lounge room consuming alcohol. When the agents asked for a menu, the male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed. The bartender offered to heat up some spinach dip for them, but they declined. Each agent then ordered an alcoholic beer, and a liquid was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid sold him was alcoholic beer. Each agent testified that he had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A sample of the alcoholic beer was logged into the Agency evidence room on June 17, 2007. That sample of the beer served by Respondent on June 16, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.5/ During the June 16-17, 2007, visit, Agent Perez spoke with a woman who was later determined to be one of the corporate officers of the licensee, Judith Vallejo. When Agent Perez asked her about obtaining a meal, Judith Vallejo replied that the kitchen was closed, but they could get food at the nearby Steak’N’Shake. The male bartender then told the agents that the Respondent’s restaurant closes at 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. June 16, 2007, was a Saturday. June 17, 2007, was a Sunday. At about 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2007, Special Agents James DeLoach, Ernest Wilson, and Angela Francis entered Respondent licensee’s premises through the lounge. The restaurant’s outside entrance was locked and the restaurant was dark. In the lounge, they asked for a menu to order a meal. The male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed, but they could have a spinach dip. The agents ordered, and were served, one beer and two mixed drinks, which Special Agents DeLoach and Wilson testified had alcohol in them. Special Agent Francis did not testify. Both of the special agents who testified were over 21 years of age, familiar with the taste and smell of alcohol, identified that the liquids they had been served were, in fact, alcoholic beverages, and that they had bought and paid for what the bartender served them as alcoholic beverages as if they were alcoholic beverages. Each testified that the bartender had represented that what he was serving them were the alcoholic beverages they had ordered. A sample vial of only the beer served by Respondent to Special Agent Wilson on July 20, 2007, was brought to the hearing, but it was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.6/ Thereafter, a notice of intent to file charges was served upon one of Respondent’s corporate officers. There was testimony from a Special Agent that an SRX licensee is required to earn fifty per cent of its gross income from the sale of food and must sell food which is the equivalent of a full course meal during the entire time alcohol is being served, and that the Administrative Complaint herein should have cited Section 561.20(1) instead of 561.20(4), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing all statutory charges; finding Respondent guilty, under each of the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d); and for the rule violations, fining Respondent $1,000.00, and revoking Respondent's license without prejudice to Respondent's obtaining any type of license, but with prejudice to Respondent's obtaining the same type of special license for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did sell an alcoholic beverage, to-wit: beer, in a place located at 4465 49th Street North, St Petersburg, Florida, a premises not covered by its beverage license as described in the application therefor, contrary to Section 562.06, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did conspire with James Tarpey to carry out an act, to- wit: sale of alcoholic beverages without a license, which would be or is in violation of the provisions of the Beverage Law, contrary to Section 562.23, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At the time the current Notice to Show Caused Administrative Complaint was brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, the Respondent, The Casino, Inc. , was the holder of a Series 2-COP license, No. 62-545, to trade as Satan's Den at the location 4495 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. Although the license most recently issued to the Respondent expired on September 30, 1978, the matter was in litigation at the time of the expiration and the license remaining in effect pending the outcome of this hearing. 1/ The facts in dispute reveal that on October 7, 1977, Severage Officer William R. Wiggs went to a business location at 4465 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, being operated by the Respondent. Then Wiggs arrived at the door, he was charged $3.00 to enter that building and was told that while he was in the building any alcoholic beverage he consumed would be free. He entered the building and was served an alcoholic beverage on four occasions by an employee or employees of the Respondent. The proximity of the building at which Beverage Officer Wiggs was served alcoholic beverages on October 7, 1977, to the actual licensed premises location is shown in the Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a diagram of the licensed premises and the building in question, roughly depicting their position in reference to each other and to 49th Street. The rectangular figure marked with an X shows the location 4465 49th Street North and the rectangular figure marked with a zero depicts the licensed premises shown by the records of the Petitioner and on the face of the license. Subsequent to his visit, Officer Wiggs requested a search warrant to be issued by the County Court of Pinellas County, Florida, and that warrant was issued which allowed a search of the building at 4465 49th Street North. The warrant was executed on October 11, 1977, and those matters returned in inventory are shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the inventory. Among the items which were obtained from the building were beer, wine and whiskey. The facts in the case also show that beer had been delivered to the location at 4465 49th. Street North to the Respondent trading as Satan's Den and the deliveries were made in the beginning of October, 1977, around the time of Officer "Wiggs' initial trip to that location and the time of the execution of the search warrant. On October 13, 1977, James Tarpey, President of the Respondent corporation, called the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in the person of Norman J. Stephens and stated to Stephens that the beer which had been seized at the time of the execution of the search warrant was property which Tarpey owned.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, The Casino, Inc., License 62-545, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
