The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1975, Martha L. Washington, a licensed vendor did have in her place of business, one (1) four-fifths brokenseal bottle of Barcardi Rum, Light, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 be imposed against the license of Martha L. Washington for the violation established through the allegation of the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 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: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha L. Washington 1085 Palmetto Street Bartow, Florida
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner, a 52 year-old male, on the basis of sex and age in its promotional practices.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Raymond Balaguer, is a 52 year-old male. He is a law enforcement officer with the title of Special Agent with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He has held that position in the Jacksonville District Office for approximately the last thirty (30) years. The Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Agency), is the governmental agency charged with the regulation and enforcement of Chapters 561, 562 and 563, Florida Statutes. At all times material, the Agency was the employer of the Petitioner and Special Agent Elizabeth Doyle. Elizabeth Doyle is a 39 year-old female. At all times pertinent, she was a law enforcement officer with the title of Special Agent with the Agency. In May of 1994, the Agency considered applications for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant for the Jacksonville District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Pursuant to Department of Management Services rules and the Police Benevolent Association contract, all candidates for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant were required to take and pass a law enforcement sergeant's written examination in order to be eligible for the class. The Agency's procedure was to select an interview panel to interview those candidates achieving the five highest numerical scores on the written law enforcement sergeant's examination who have applied for a vacant position in the specific county. Immediately after the interviews, the panel considered and discussed the applicants' test scores, interviews, and personnel files. The panel recommended to the Division's Director the most suitable candidate for promotion to the open position. The Petitioner, a male at age 52, applied for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant in the Jacksonville District Office. The Petitioner received a score of 74 percent on the written law enforcement sergeant's exam. The Petitioner had 26 1/2 years of experience with the Division, and significant formal education to include a Master's degree. Petitioner had additional administrative experience as a warrant officer in the active Marine Reserve. The Petitioner had served on a state wide Department Committee to study licensing policy and procedure. The Petitioner has completed all required in-service training. Special Agent Doyle, a female at age 39, applied for promotion to the same vacant position of law enforcement sergeant in the Jacksonville District Office. Special Agent Doyle received a score of 85 percent on the law enforcement sergeant's exam. She had six years of experience with the Department. She received the highest written examination score of the candidates who applied for and interviewed for the Jacksonville position. She did not have a baccalaureate degree. The Department has traditionally emphasized formal education as a basis for promotion. Special Agent Doyle and the Petitioner and three other candidates were interviewed by the same interview panel composed of the three Bureau Chiefs in the Division and two Captains. The panel asked all of the candidates the same questions relating to a law enforcement sergeant's duties. Special Agent Doyle filed a resume of her accomplishments with the panel. The Petitioner was not advised of the opportunity to file a resume with the panel and did not do so. Special Agent Doyle had a very strong interview, and answered the questions put to her in a manner that impressed the panel while the Petitioner's interview was unremarkable. The panel considered the applicants' test scores, interviews and personnel files. There was no consideration of the candidates' formal education. The panel discussed the five candidates for promotion to the Jacksonville District Office law enforcement sergeant position. The panel considered Special Agent Doyle's resume. The panel unanimously determined Special Agent Doyle was the most suitable candidate for the promotion. The panel forwarded its unanimous recommendation to the Division's Director to promote Special Agent Doyle. The Division Director promoted Special Agent Doyle to the position of sergeant for the Jacksonville District Office in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Special Agent Doyle was considered "highly motivated" because of seeking a position as training officer. Licensing is an integral part of the duties of a law enforcement sergeant. Special Agent Doyle was considered skilled in licensing as a result of being a training officer and her scores on the examination and interview. The Petitioner's supervisor of 11 years, who interviewed both Special Agent Doyle and the Petitioner, found the Petitioner was not as skilled in licensing as Special Agent Doyle not because his answers were wrong, but because they reflected a management style or approach which was less compatible with his than was Special Agent Doyle's management style. No direct evidence was presented that anyone suggested the selection of Special Agent Doyle to the members of the interviewing panel or attempted to influence the panel's selection of Special Agent Doyle. Evidence was received that the Agency was not under any court or commission order to employee minorities. The supervisor testified that another member of the panel stated that promotion of Doyle would help the Department meet its equal opportunity goals regarding the promotion of minorities. In June of 1994 at the time of Special Agent Doyle's promotion, the Agency employed 19 sergeants. Of that number, 17 were males and two were female. Of those 17 sergeants, nine were age 40 or older when they were promoted, and four of the nine were age 50 or older when they were promoted. Sgt. Doyle was subsequently discharged for reasons relating to her conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter its Final Order directing that: The Agency cease and desist from gender discrimination; and The Agency promote the Petitioner to sergeant in the Jacksonville office. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Balaguer 4860 Brighton Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217-4712 William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Giraldo Gonzalez, d/b/a LaGoma Restaurant, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-03475, series 2- COP, for the premises known as LaGoma Restaurant, 9550 N.W. South River Drive, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On May 30, 1986, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), following a complaint from another agency, began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. On that date, DABT Investigators Carlos Baixauli and Hector Garcia, operating under cover, entered the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. During the course of their visit they observed the on-duty bartender, Annie, deliver money to a male patron and receive from him a matchbook containing a small plastic packet of white powder. Annie subsequently delivered the matchbook to an unidentified male who was standing outside the front door of the premises. On June 3, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises and again seated themselves at the bar. Investigator Garcia asked the on-duty bartender, Mindy, if she could get him some "perico" (Spanish slang for cocaine) Mindy subsequently approached Investigator Garcia and, sitting on his lap, pressed a small plastic bag of cocaine into his hand. Garcia paid Mindy $50.00 for the substance. 1/ On June 4, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises. As they seated themselves at the bar, Investigator Garcia observed two patrons playing the video poker machine and shortly thereafter saw Respondent open the machine, erase the accumulated points, and pay the patrons and unknown quantity of money from the cash register. Later, while seated at the bar, Investigator Garcia engaged the on-duty bartender, Mindy, in conversation. Mindy placed a napkin on the bar in front of Garcia, poured cocaine onto it from a plastic package she had removed from her pocket, and invited Garcia to try some "perico". At that time there were a number of patrons, including a family with small children, seated proximate to Garcia. The investigators went to the bathroom and secured the cocaine in an evidence bag. Upon their return from the bathroom, the investigators heard screaming and arguing near the bar. They observed a male patron approach another male patron, who was carrying a gym bag which he claimed contained a shotgun, and demand that he put the gun away or use it. Respondent attempted to quell the disturbance; however, the patron with the bag swung it against the other patron's head, causing a severe cut and profuse bleeding. As the two patrons wrestled to the floor among broken bottles and glass, Respondent picked up the gym bag and hid it in the kitchen. After the fight broke up, Respondent's employees immediately cleaned up the premises. When the police arrived to investigate the disturbance they found no evidence of the mayhem that had occurred, and were assured by Respondent that only a miner altercation had taken place. Contrary to Respondent's assurances, a real donnybrook had occurred, and the patron struck with the gym bag had suffered severe injuries and was, at that moment, in the hospital. After the police left, another on-duty bartender, Debra (Mindy's sister), approached the investigators while they were seated at the bar and, laughing, began talking about the fight. During the course of their conversation, Debra removed a straw from her shoe and a five dollar bill from her blouse. She unfolded the bill on the bar, revealing a white powdered substance, and snorted a portion of the substance through the straw. Several patrons, together with bartender Mindy, were present at this time. Later that evening, Mindy handed Investigator Garcia a small plastic bag of cocaine, telling him to go try some. The investigators went into the bathroom where they transferred a portion of the cocaine into a plastic bag for evidence and returned the remainder to Mindy." 2/ On June 6, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the premises, and assumed their usual seats at the bar. A patron seated next to Investigator Garcia introduced himself as Eduardo and asked Garcia if he wanted to buy some good perico. When Garcia agreed, Eduardo stood, removed a small plastic bag of cocaine from his pocket, laid it on the bar, and received $45.00 from Garcia. Several patrons, together with the on-duty bartender, Maritza, observed the transaction. Later, Investigator Baixauli asked on-duty bartender Debra if she could get him some cocaine. When Debra agreed, Baixauli gave her $50.00 and she walked over to three male patrons. Upon her return, Debra placed a plastic package of cocaine on the bar in front of the investigator. Several patrons smiled at Baixauli after observing the transaction. Following this sale, off- duty waitress Jenny approached Investigator Baixauli and told him she was sure he would like the perico since she was the supplier. Subsequently, Jenny joined a male patron seated down the bar, and the two snorted a white powder off the bar in the presence of numerous patrons. On June 9, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises. The investigators began speaking with patron Eduardo, regarding the purchase of more cocaine. The investigators left the bar for a short time with Eduardo, but returned before him. When Eduardo entered the premises, he was carrying a large plastic bag containing approximately one ounce of marijuana. Eduardo placed the bag on the bar in front of the investigators, and told them the marijuana was on the house. On-duty bartenders Esperanza and Candy, together with Respondent, were proximate to this transaction. On June 10, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises. During the course of their visit, Investigator Baixauli observed a male patron playing the video poker machine who suddenly exclaimed "I won". Respondent told the patron to "leave it on 600 and I'll pay you". Respondent then paid the patron $150.00 from the cash register. The investigators again returned to the premises on June 12, 1986. As Investigator Garcia spoke with off-duty waitress Jenny, she removed a small change purse from her boot, which she opened to reveal several small packages of white powder. Jenny told Garcia she would sell him some for $50.00, as opposed to $60.00, if he would agree to let on-duty bartender Maritza have some. When Garcia agreed, Jenny and Haritza went to the restroom. Jenny subsequently returned and handed the packet of cocaine to Investigator Garcia. Later, a patron identified as Roger sat next to Investigator Garcia and Jenny, and purchased a packet of cocaine from her. Roger subsequently handed Jenny the packet and told her to let her friends try some. Investigator Garcia went to the restroom, secured a sample of the cocaine for evidence, and returned the remainder to Jenny. On June 16, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises and took their usual seats at the bar; on duty were bartenders Mindy and Debra. Investigator Baixauli observed Respondent standing at the video poker machine watching a patron play. When the patron had achieved a score of 400 points, he told Respondent to "credit me 50 on the machine and give me the rest". Respondent credited the machine 50 points, and paid the patron an unknown amount of money from the cash register. Meanwhile, Eduardo seated himself next to Investigator Garcia and asked if he wanted to buy some good cocaine. Garcia told Eduardo that he was a little short of cash, however, since Mindy volunteered to go halves, Garcia agreed. Garcia gave Mindy $25.00, she borrowed $10.00 from Debra, and gave Eduardo a total of $50.00 in exchange for a plastic packet of cocaine. Mindy held the packet up for Debra to see, whereupon they went to the restroom. Upon their return, Mindy placed the packet of cocaine on the bar in front of Garcia. On June 18, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises, and took their usual seats at the bar. While Garcia was seated next to, and speaking with, off-duty waitress Jenny, Jenny summoned Respondent. While Respondent was present, Garcia asked Jenny if she had a small amount of perico he could have since he was short of cash. At that point, Respondent moved about 3-4 feet away to speak with a patron. Jenny removed a plastic packet of cocaine from her pocket and placed it on the bar. As Garcia reached to pick up the packet, he observed Respondent looking in his direction. As Garcia continued to speak with Jenny, a male patron approached her and asked if she had his "stuff". Jenny handed the man a plastic packet containing a white powder and he paid her an unknown quantity of money. Investigator Garcia subsequently observed the patron snort a portion of the white powder through a rolled up dollar bill while standing in the pool room area. A number of patrons were playing pool or standing in the area during his activity. The investigators returned to the premises on June 20, 1986, and observed Respondent pay off on the video poker machine. Later in the evening, while Respondent was speaking to Sixto Gonzalez, Sixto called Mindy over and handed her a marijuana cigarette. Mindy and her sister Debra went to the service door and smoked the marijuana. On June 23, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises. After assuming their usual seats, Investigator Baixauli asked on-duty bartender Debra if she had any cocaine for sale. Debra replied that she did not, but that she could get some from another on-duty bartender, Esperanza. Baixauli gave Debra $50.00, and she secured a plastic packet of cocaine from Esperanza and delivered it to Baixauli. Several patrons, who were speaking with Esperanza at the time, observed the transaction. On June 27, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises for the last time. Seated in their usual seats, Investigator Baixauli counted out $50.00 in front of on-duty bartender Mindy. Mindy immediately picked up the money and, walking away, announced "it's perico time". Baixauli observed Mindy approach a male known as Flaco and then go the restroom. When she returned to Baixauli, she handed him a plastic packet of cocaine. Baixauli held the packet up in the presence of other patrons, and while Respondent was standing behind the bar. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours and at times when Respondent was present. At no time did Respondent or his employees express any concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, all of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used and sold on the licensed premises, on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Neither Respondent, nor any of his employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale or use of controlled substances.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peek A Boo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Peek A Boo Lounge is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 63-549 (Series 2-COP), at the business address of 270 East Highway 92, Lakeland, Florida. On January 29, 1982, Deborah Lynn Edwards, a dancer-entertainer, while on the licensed premises of Respondent, was in possession of and sold amphetamines to Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Investigator Whitis (Counts 1 and 2). On the same day, January 29, 1982, Constance M. Borque, while dancing as an entertainer on the licensed premises, exposed her pubic area to the customers and patrons then present at the Peek A Boo Lounge. This exposure of her pubic area was witnessed by Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Officer Whitis (Count 3). On February 2, 1982, Officer Creamer of the Polk County Sheriff's Department was in the Peek A Boo Lounge in an undercover capacity. On this evening he was approached by Isabella Marie Arnot, a dancer-entertainer. During the course of their conversation, Arnot requested that Officer Creamer purchase an alcoholic beverage for her (Count 6) On February 4, 1982, Officer Whitis was again in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On this evening he was approached by Connie Frances Margotta, a dancer-entertainer, and a brief conversation ensued. In the course of this conversation, Margotta suggested certain sexual activities to Whitis, but there was no offer by Margotta to exchange sexual favors for money or other property of value (Count 7). On the next evening, February 5, 1982, Officer Whitis returned to the licensed premises and was again approached by Connie Frances Margotta. She again suggested sexual activities with Whitis, without offering to exchange sexual favors for money or other property of value (Count 8). On the same day, February 5, 1982, Beverage Officer Nelson, of the Division, was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While Nelson was in the licensed premises on this evening he was approached by Daneilla A. Good, a barmaid, and engaged in a conversation with her. In the course of this conversation, Good requested Nelson to purchase a drink for a dancer-entertainer (Count 12). On about February 5, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Officer Walker was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Walker observed Linda Leanne Marquis, entertaining the patrons by dancing in the licensed premises. She periodically removed a portion of her costume with the exception of a feather boa. At the conclusion of her dance, Marquis exposed her pubic area to the patrons by "flashing" with the boa. On February 6, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Officer Creamer was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and was approached by Daneilla A. Good, a barmaid. In the course of their conversation, Good requested that Creamer purchase a drink for a dancer-entertainer seated by him (Count 15). Polk County Sheriff's Department Officer Whitis was again in the licensed premises on February 11, 1982, and engaged in conversation with Robin K. Stutzman, a dancer-entertainer. During the course of this conversation, Whitis inquired as to the availability of methaqualone, and Stutzman advised that the substance was available. She subsequently sold and delivered four methaqualone tablets to Whitis inside the licensed premises (Counts 16 and 17). Again on the evening of February 11, 1982, while on the licensed premises, Officer Whitis observed Linda Leanne Marquis, a dancer-entertainer, expose her pubic area while performing a strip tease dance. Whitis observed Marquis remove her clothing and at the conclusion of her dance, briefly expose her pubic area (Count 18). On February 11, 1982, Beverage Officer Nelson was in licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Nelson was approached by a dancer-entertainer known as "Bell" who asked him to purchase a drink for her (count 21). On February 11, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Investigator Manatou was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He observed Isabella Marie Arnot, a dancer-entertainer, expose her buttocks area to himself and other patrons by pulling down the back of her entertainer's costume (Count 22). On the evening of February 11, 1982, Officer Nelson was approached by Isabella Marie Arnot, and during the course of their conversation, Arnot requested Officer Nelson to purchase a drink for her (Count 23). On February 17, 1982, Beverage Officer Cahoon was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He inquired of Isabella Marie Arnot, a dancer-entertainer, as to the availability of methaqualone. She advised methaqualone was available and subsequently sold and delivered three methaqualone tablets to Cahoon (Counts 24 and 25). On February 17, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Officer Whitis inquired of Connie Frances Margotta, a dancer-entertainer, as to the availability of methaqualone. Margotta replied that methaqualone was available and subsequently sold and delivered one methaqualone tablet to Whitis (Counts 26 and 27). On that same evening, February 17, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Officer Whitis inquired of Isabella Marie Arnot, a dancer- entertainer, as to the availability of methaqualone. Arnot replied that methaqualone was available and subsequently sold and delivered three methaqualone tablets to Whitis (Counts 30 and 30A). On February 19, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Officer Walker was in the licensed premises in connection with this investigation. He engaged in conversation with a woman identified as Tammy Hobbs, and inquired as to the availability of amphetamines. Hobbs stated that such was available and subsequently sold and delivered amphetamines to Walker in the licensed premises. There was no showing of any relationship between Hobbs and the Respondent (Counts 31 and 32). On the same evening, February 19, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Officer Walker was approached by Sandra Delores Moor, a dancer-entertainer. In the course of their conversation, Moor offered to perform a sexual act with Walker for $45.00 (Count 33). On the same evening, February 19, 1982, Polk County Sheriff's Department Undercover Officer Manatou was at the licensed premises. He observed Robin K. Stutzman, a dancer-entertainer, performing a strip tease dance. At the conclusion, Stutzman exposed her pubic area to patrons by removing her hands and a feather boa from in front of her pubic area (Count34). On February 24, 1982, various officials of local and state law enforcement agencies met at the licensed premises for the purpose of executing arrest warrants. In conjunction with these arrests, Petitioner's Beverage Officers conducted a licensed premises inspection. During the course of this inspection, Teresa Okerstrom Crisp, a dancer-entertainer, was found to be in possession of cannabis. The cannabis was located in Crisp's purse, which was in her locker inside the dressing area of the licensed premises. However, the search of her purse was made with neither her permission, nor a warrant or probable cause (Count 37).
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts 1, 2, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 30A of the Amended Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause, and suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 18th day of January, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, doing business as The Knight Out, was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 72-79, series 1-COP. Prior to the hearing . . . in this cause, Respondent had turned in his license to the Petitioner. To the rear of the licensed premises, Respondent operated a bottle club known as The Knight Club. The Knight Club is attached to and shares restroom facilities with The Knight Out. On March 27, 1975, Respondent was served with a "Notice to show cause why beverage license should not have civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked" on the grounds that on Sunday, January 26, 1975: his employee, Vicki Lynn Williamson, at approximately 2:00 am., did sell at the licensed premises, an alcoholic beverage, a can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer L. E. Williams during the time that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394 enacted pursuant to F.S. s. 562.14; at approximately 4:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 5:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 6:05 a.m., he refused to admit to the licensed premises beverage officer Jack Garrett, while in the performance of his official duties, contrary to F.S. s. 562.41; and at approximately 6:05 a.m., he had in his possession, custody and control, at the licensed premises a partially full 4/5 quart of Smirnoff Vodka, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold by him, in violation of F.S. s. 562.02. Beverage officer L. E. Williams went to The Knight Out the weekend of January 24, 1975, in order to conduct an undercover investigation of the licensed premises. He observed the Respondent, between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on January 24th, remove four cases of beer from The Knight Out and place them into a small room in The Knight Club portion of the premises. At about 1:00 a.m. on January 25th, Williams paid a $2.00 cover charge, entered The Knight Club and remained there until 6:00 a.m. On Saturday night, January 25th, beverage officer Williams again went to The Knight Out and, at about 11:30 p.m., again observed Respondent moving five cases of beer from The Knight Out to the rear portion, The Knight Club. Williams entered The Knight Club during the early hours of January 26, 1975, carrying a can of beer with him. He left at approximately 2:30 a.m., met with other beverage agents, and returned to The Knight Club at about 3:45 a.m., paying the cover charge of $2.00. At 4:00 a.m. and again at 5:00 a.m. on January 26, 1975, Williams purchased from Respondent Poppell cans of Budweiser beer at seventy-five cents per can. Williams retained control of the two beer cans and at about 6:30 a.m. he tagged them as evidence. They were admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibits 4 and 5. At approximately 6:05 a.m. on January 26, 1975, beverage officer Jack Garrett, along with several other law enforcement agents, knocked on the front door of The Knight Club seeking entrance thereto. Respondent told Garrett to get in front of the peephole on the door so that he could see who was there. Garrett, who had known Respondent for some fifteen years, testified that he showed his identification card to Respondent through the peephole, whereupon Respondent replied that he would not let him in. Beverage officer T. A. Hicks, present with Garrett at the time, confirmed these events. Respondent and two other witnesses present at the scene testified that Respondent asked the persons at the front door to identify themselves, but that no response was received. Shortly thereafter, Officer Garrett, along with other law enforcement officers, went around to the other side of The Knight Club and entered, without knocking, the ladies rest room which led to the inside of The Knight Club. Once inside, they met Respondent leaving a small room with a handful of liquor bottles. One such bottle was seized - - a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff Vodka - - and was received into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 6. Shirrell Woodalf testified that she had come to The Knight Out on the morning in question with another couple. When the other couple left, they gave her their bottle of Smirnoff Vodka. She then gave the bottle to Respondent to keep for her in his office. Woodalf identified Exhibit 6 as being the same bottle as that left with her and given to Respondent. Four witnesses who often frequented The Knight Club testified that patrons of the Club always brought their own beer or other alcoholic beverages into the Club. Respondent would cool their beer for them and keep their bottles in his office if they so desired. Respondent sometimes charged a small fee for cooling the beer and he sold setups for mixed drinks. These four witnesses never saw Respondent sell either beer or other alcoholic beverages in The Knight Club.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the notice to show cause be dismissed; Respondent be found guilty of violating F.S. ss. 562.14 and 562.41, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the notice to show cause; and Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street, Room 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P.O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347
The Issue This cause initially arose upon a complaint of unfair or discriminatory housing and may be resolved upon jurisdictional and procedural issues as more fully described below.
Findings Of Fact The procedural history of this cause requires dismissal due to Petitioner's abandonment of the claim of discrimination. Petitioner did not respond to the initial order entered herein. Therefore, the Notice of Hearing for final formal hearing on December 2, 1996 was entered without any input from the Petitioner. It was mailed to all parties on October 23, 1996. On or about November 19, 1996, the U.S. Postal Service returned Petitioner's copy of the Notice of Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings bearing a new address for Petitioner. Petitioner had not seen fit to advise the Division of any change of address. The Notice of Hearing was remailed on or about November 20, 1996 to the new address for Petitioner. At formal hearing on December 2, 1996, both Respondents were present with their respective legal counsel and all their witnesses. Petitioner did not appear even though open video communication was maintained for one hour, with everyone except the Administrative Law Judge present at the Jacksonville location. Due to the possible "short notice" to Petitioner and in an abundance of caution because evidence and argument at that time suggested this case could be dismissed upon proper motion, no evidence on the merits was heard on December 2, 1996. After formal hearing was adjourned on December 2, 1996, the Notice of Hearing which had been remailed to Petitioner on November 20, 1996 was received back by the Division. The U.S. Postal Service had indicated that Petitioner was not at the new address either. Because the undersigned was without any means of locating Petitioner, an Order to Show Cause was entered on December 11, 1996. It provided, in pertinent part, 3. Petitioner is granted 20 days from the date of this order in which to show cause in writing, filed with the Division, why formal hearing should be rescheduled. If this instant order is returned by the post office as undeliverable, it may be presumed Petitioner has abandoned his claim by his failure to provide a current address during the time this case has been before the Division. If the order is not returned and Petitioner does not file anything, it will be presumed he has abandoned his claim and does not still seek a formal [sic hearing] in this cause. If Petitioner does show cause why this case should be rescheduled, this cause may be reset for formal hearing. The December 11, 1996 Order to Show Cause was served upon Petitioner at his last known address. Petitioner has not provided any other address during the time this cause has been before the Division. More than sixty (60) days have passed, and the Order to Show Cause has not been returned by the U.S. Postal Service. Petitioner has not filed any response so as to show cause why formal hearing on the merits should be rescheduled. Therefore, it is presumed that Petitioner has abandoned his claim and no longer seeks a formal hearing in this cause. The presumptions arising from the Williams/Higbee Motion to Dismiss require dismissal of Bessie Williams and Foland Higbee Realty, Inc. as Respondents Respondents Bessie Williams and Foland Higbee Realty, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 6, 1996. (Copy attached to aid the Florida Commission on Human Relations) Pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.016 Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner had seven days plus five days for mailing in which to file a response in opposition to this motion. Petitioner has filed no response. Therefore, all allegations in the motion with its attached supporting documentation may be taken as true and unopposed. Petitioner has executed a General Release which discharged Bessie Williams and Foland Higbee Realty, Inc. of any liability for all events up to and including June 15, 1995. Petitioner's original Housing Discrimination Complaint was filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) on or about February 1, 1995. (Copy of complaint attached to aid the Florida Commission on Human Relations) Accordingly, Petitioner cannot proceed in this cause against Bessie Williams and Foland Higbee Realty, Inc. because all issues between Petitioner and these Respondents that occurred up to and including the date of his initial complaint have been settled, waived and released by Petitioner. III The absence of jurisdiction over the Jacksonville Housing Authority requires dismissal of that Respondent as a party. From the materials provided as part of the Commission's referral of this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Copies attached to aid the Florida Commission on Human Relations) it appears that: Petitioner did not name the Jacksonville Housing Authority in his original Housing Discrimination Complaint filed with the Commission on or about February 1, 1995. The Commission's July 16, 1996 "DETERMINATION OF NO REASONABLE CAUSE" to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred also did not name the Jacksonville Housing Authority as a party; and The Petition for Relief herein, filed with the Commission on or about August 5, 1996 also does not name the Jacksonville Housing Authority as a party. It appears that the only reason the Jacksonville Housing Authority was named in this action at all is because Commission staff inadvertently and incorrectly used a Transmittal of Petition form for Petitions for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice and a form for Notice to Respondent of Filing Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice naming the Jacksonville Housing Authority as Respondent. The only other possible reason for involving the Jacksonville Housing Authority in this case would be to allow it to conduct its own investigation and/or hearing pursuant to Section 760.34(3), Florida Statutes, in which case the Housing Authority still should not have been joined as a party Respondent. Pursuant to Section 760.34(2), Florida Statutes, a complaint of unfair or discriminatory housing must be filed within one year of the date the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred. The complaint and petition herein are not clear as to the alleged date of discrimination in housing, but since the complaint herein was filed February 1, 1995, it logically follows that the alleged discrimination had to have occurred before February 1, 1995. Therefore, it is clearly too late, pursuant to statute, for Petitioner to refile any housing discrimination complaint against the Jacksonville Housing Authority for that time period.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and underlying claims of unfair housing against all Respondents. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie LaManna, Esquire Luis Tous, Esquire Office of the General Counsel 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jerome Reed, Jr. 1471 West 13th Street Jacksonville, FL 32209 H. Leon Holbrook, III, Esquire Independent Square 1 Independent Drive, Suite 2301 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5059 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/ Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder. In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981. Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation. The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for $5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises. Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M. On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets. Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night. Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction. On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981. Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance. At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll. On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty. On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00. On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises. On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar. When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine. On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for $75.00. In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00. During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area. Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store. Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired. Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation. On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke. (Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.) During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters. Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics. Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine. At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises. Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack. Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys. Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
