The Issue Whether Minnie Lee Cooper did sell or cause to be sold or delivered intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, to wit: gin, in Santa Rosa County, on or about June 6, 1975.
Findings Of Fact A Notice to Show Cause was issued by the Division of Beverage charging: "On or about June 4, 1975, you, Minnie Lee Cooper, licensed under the beverage laws, and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; Minnie Lee Cooper, did sell or cause to be sold or delivered, intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, to wit; gin, in Santa Rosa County, that which has voted against the sale of such intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, contrary to F.S. 568.02." The Respondent and Frankie Lee Johns appeared as witnesses for Respondent and Beverage Officer Cobb appeared as witness for the Petitioner. The beverage agent, Officer Cobb, testified that he and a confidential informer entered the premises of the Paradise Inn on June 4, 1975, and were there for a period of time between approximately 9:00 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. They requested Minnie Lee Cooper to sell intoxicating beverages to them. Minnie Lee Cooper said that she had nothing but gin and when informed by Officer Cobb that that was satisfactory, she entered a room adjacent to the main part of the business operating as the Paradise Inn, sold gin to the beverage agent in a white paper cup and gave him two additional paper cups. The officer testified that the confidential informer was present with him at all times and was observing him and was within a few feet of him at the time of the sale of the gin. After the gin was poured in the cup, Minnie Lee Cooper said, "That will be $2.50," which the beverage officer testified that he paid. Petitioner filed as evidence two marked bottles containing a clear liquid known as gin and three paper cups. The owner of the Paradise Inn, Frankie Lee Johns, testified that she was on the premises of Paradise Inn at about 9:00 p.m., but did not see the beverage officer or the confidential informer. The Respondent, Minnie Lee Cooper, testified that the incident did not happen and that no intoxicating liquors were sold. The Respondent introduced a witness by the name of Floyd who testified he did not see a white person in the Paradise Inn at the time of the alleged incident; however, he testified that he was tired and "I laid down and kicked up my feet," so it appears said witness may have been asleep during the time of the alleged sale. This Hearing Officer observed the demeanor of the witnesses of the Petitioner and the Respondent and although the testimony of the Respondent was that a sale did not take place, it is the opinion of this Hearing Officer that such sale did take place, and the two small bottles containing gin which were testified to have been the same liquid sold on the premises of Paradise Inn, was in fact gin and that the three paper cups entered as part of the evidence were paper cups provided by the Respondent, Minnie Lee Cooper, all in exchange for $2.50. From the foregoing findings of fact it is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the Respondent, Minnie Lee Cooper, did sell an intoxicating beverage, to-wit: gin, in the county of Santa Rosa, Florida contrary to Section 568.02, Florida Statutes. A civil penalty may be assessed against the Respondent or the license nay be suspended or revoked under Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. It is therefore recommended that License No. 67-24,1-COP issued to Cooper Tavern, Limit Street, Bagdad, Florida and Minnie Lee Cooper be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Barry Z. Rhodes, Esquire P.O. Box 810 Milton, Florida 32570 Charles Nuzum, Director Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on grounds that (1) on several occasions, cocaine was possessed, sold, or delivered on the licensed premises by Respondent's employees in violation of state law, and (2) by virtue of such Possession, sale, or delivery of cocaine by its employees, Respondent maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Provende, Inc., a general partner in a limited partnership known as Alexandre, Ltd., is responsible for and operates a nightclub under the name of Club Alexandre (the "Club") at 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In connection with its operation of Club Alexandre, Respondent holds beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, which permits the sale and consumption of intoxicating beverages on the premises. (Stipulation of Parties, Testimony of Cachaldore.) Club Alexandre, located within the Omni International complex, is a large, multi-faceted club. Its premises consists of two levels totaling approximately 30,000 square feet. The first level includes a restaurant, bar area, three separate dance floors, bathroom facilities, and a stage for entertainment. Buffet lunches are served as early as 11:30 a.m., followed by a cocktail hour in late afternoon, dinner, and live entertainment which continues until 3:00 a.m. The second level is used primarily for private parties, weddings, and business meetings; it is enclosed in glass, and includes banquet rooms, bathroom facilities, storage rooms, and the Club's business offices. Ordinarily, the Club employs from 45 to 50 persons as busboys, bartenders, barmaids, waiters, maitre d's, cooks, dishwashers, office staff, promoters, and buyers. Most of the employees have been hired by Alex Cachaldora--general manager of the Club, stockholder, and president of Respondent. He either hires or approves the hiring of all Club employees and is the individual responsible for managing the Club on a daily basis. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Club Alexandre is a semi-private club. Upon application, acceptance, and payment of a fee, persons may become members; public customers may also use the Club after screening at the entrance and payment of a cover charge. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) I. As to Count I On November 23, 1980, at approximately 12:10 a.m., D.C. Diaz--an off- duty officer of the Miami Police Department--paid a cover charge and entered the Club Alexandre. He sat at the bar counter, ordered a drink from a young barmaid dressed in a black uniform, and asked her if she could give him some "white magic", a street term referring to cocaine. She asked how much he wanted, he said "one gram"; she then informed him that the price would be $65. (Testimony of Diaz.) Diaz then gave the barmaid a $100 bill; she went to the cash register and returned with $35 in change which he gave to Diaz. She told him, "It will take between five and ten minutes." (Tr. 22-I-22.) Five to ten minutes later, a waiter--dressed in a black tuxedo-type shirt--approached from the restaurant area and gave the barmaid a folded napkin which she, in turn, gave to Diaz. He opened the napkin and found a small tinfoil packet inside containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Diaz.) Subsequent laboratory tests by the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department confirmed that the white powder obtained by Diaz from the barmaid on November 23, 1980, was cocaine. II. As to Count 2 On January 23, 1981, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Beverage Officers Carmen Gonzalez and Joe Mato, together with Art Serig of the Miami Police Department, entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. They proceeded to the second floor area, sat at a table, and ordered drinks. (Testimony of Mato.) At approximately 12:25 am. (January 24, 1981), Officer Mato proceeded to the downstairs bar where a barmaid identified as Enid Epstein was tending bar. After ordering a drink, he asked her if she knew where he could obtain some "white magic"; she answered, "Yes, if he is still here it would be $65."(Tr. 22-I-53.) He agreed to the price and handed her $70. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area located in the rear of the premises. A few minutes later, he observed her running across the upstairs lounge area to the bar. After a brief delay, she proceeded toward the downstairs bathroom area. She then returned to Officer Mate, handed him a $5 bill folded into a small package, and explained, "This is the change that I owed you." (Tr. 22-I- 54.) He opened the folded $5 bill and found a small tinfoil packet containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Mato.) Subsequent Dade Public Safety Department laboratory tests confirmed that the white powder obtained by Officer Mato from Enid Epstein was cocaine. (P-2.) III. As to Count 3 On January 24, 1981, at approximately 9:20 p.m., undercover Beverage Officers Lou Clark end Lou Terminello entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of continuing the Division's narcotic investigation. They seated themselves at the downstairs bar area end ordered drinks from a male bartender who introduced himself as "Bill", later identified as William Mendel. Officer Clark told "Bill" that they had picked up a couple of girls and asked if there was anything to help with the party. A conversation ensued about there being a lot of "snow" in Kansas--Clark using the term's ordinary meaning--and "Bill" answering, "That is not the kind of snow I was referring to." (Tr. 22-I-132.) In response to Clark's question about obtaining something that might help with their party, "Bill" indicated his contact wasn't there at that time, but that "they should be in later." (Tr. 22-I-133.) Officers Clark and Terminello then left the premises. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) About an hour later, the two beverage officers returned to the premises, and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered a drink from "Bill" and asked if his contact had arrived. He went over and talked to a young red-haired female barmaid--later identified as Enid Epstein-and returned to the officers; he then wrote "75" on a white bar napkin and placed it on the counter in front of them. Terminello said, "That is fine, we'll take two" (Tr. 22-I-136) and laid $80 on the table. Clark laid dawn a $100 bill. "Bill" took the $100, and $56 from Terminello's $80, leaving $24 in change. 4/ "Bill" then rang up a $6 sale an the register and placed the rest of the money in the right vest pocket of Enid Epstein. She then left the bar and proceeded into the kitchen area. A few minutes later she returned--via the staircase leading from the second floor--folded an unidentified object into a napkin, and handed it to Bill. He, in turn, handed the napkin to Terminello. After finding two small tinfoil packets in the napkin, the officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Terminello, Clark.) The two small packets contained a white powder. Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified the white powder contained in one of the packets as cocaine. 5/ IV. As to Count 4 After his initial drug transaction with barmaid Enid Epstein during the early morning hours of January 24, 1981, (Paragraph 7 through 9, Count 2, above) Officer Mato returned to the Club Alexandre with Beverage Officer Emil Marrero. They arrived shortly before midnight on January 24, 1981, and seated themselves on opposite ends of the downstairs bar. After ordering drinks, Officer Mato called over barmaid Enid Epstein--who was tending bar--placed $70 on the bar and told her he would like to purchase some "white magic", another street name referring to cocaine. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area, then returned and handed Mato a folded $5 bill containing a small tinfoil packet. A few minutes later, the beverage officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Mato, Merrero.) The small tinfoil packet contained white powder which subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified as cocaine. (P-2.) V As to Count 5 At 11:00 p.m., on January 27, 1981, Beverage Officers Marrero and Delmonte entered the Club Alexandre and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered drinks from barmaid Enid Epstein. Shortly after midnight Merrero folded $70 in a small packet and placed it on the bar; he then asked Epstein if he could buy some "white magic", meaning cocaine. Taking the money, she went to the kitchen area and returned, placing a folded $5 bill in front of Marrero. Inside the folded bill was a small tinfoil packet. The officers then left the premises. (Testimony of Marrero, Delmonte.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of the tinfoil packet as cocaine. (P-3.) VI. As to Count 6 On January 28, 1981, at 12:45 a.m., Officers Clark and Terminello returned to the Club Alexandre in furtherance of their narcotics investigation. Seated at the lower level bar, they ordered drinks from Enid Epstein, the barmaid. Shortly thereafter, Terminello called her over end asked her if there was any chance of their getting some more "toot", another slang ward for cocaine. She replied that she would have to check to "see if any of my people are here." (Tr. 22-I-104.) She then left the bar, walked to the rear kitchen area and returned several minutes later saying, "Yeah, no problem. There is somebody here." Id. Each officer then placed $75 on the bar; she retrieved the money, left for the kitchen area and returned with a folded napkin which contained two small tinfoil packets. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of one of the packets as cocaine. 6/ (P-5.) VII. As to Count 7 On January 29, 1981, at approximately 11:40 p.m. beverage officers, assisted by officers of the Miami Police Department, executed a search warrant on the premises of the Club Alexandre. During the search, Beverage Officer Joseph Maggio found a brown leather purse on a shelf in a locked storage room on the second floor. The outside pocket of the purse contained ten small tinfoil packets containing a white powder suspected to be cocaine. A further search of the purse revealed small baggies and six additional tinfoil packets--all containing suspected cocaine. (Testimony of Maggio, McEwan.) The purse also contained a checkbook and a Florida driver's license issued in the name of Luis A. Vargas. Vargas, the head chef for Club Alexandre, was subsequently located downstairs. After being advised of his rights, Vargas identified the purse as his own. Of the numerous packets of white powder found within the purse, only one was subjected to Public Safety Department laboratory analysis; the contents of that packet were identified as cocaine. (P-7.) VIII. Licensee's Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care end Diligence Before a beverage license can be suspended or revoked for a violation of law on the licensee's premises, the licensee must be found culpably responsible for the violation through his own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence. 7/ In the instant case, no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent has been alleged or proved. Rather, the Division contends that the violations of state narcotics laws described above resulted from Respondent's failure to exercise reasonable skill and diligence in managing and supervising its operations. Respondent does not dispute that on seven occasions, as alleged, violations of state narcotics laws occurred on the premises; however, it denys negligence or lack of diligence. It affirmatively contends that it took every reasonable precaution to guard against the illegal sale or use of narcotics on the licensed premises. (Testimony of Cachaldora, Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent's Suggested Findings of Fact.) Respondent's contention is unavailing; the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to take reasonable precautions to guard against violations of narcotics laws on its premises--that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care end diligence in managing its operations and supervising its employees. The following facts justify this conclusion: The alleged violations of narcotics laws occurred on the premises in a recurring, persistent, and practiced manner. They occurred at least seven times--over a 2 1/2- month period--and involved at least three separate employees of the Respondent. Despite the licensee's knowledge or suspicion, through its operators and managers, that violations of state narcotics laws occasionally occurred on it premises, the licensee never expressly enunciated--either to its employees or patrons--a policy forbidding the possession, sale, or use of narcotics. Employees were not admonished against involving themselves in such violations; neither were penalties for such violations announced in advance. Neither was information concerning possible narcotics law violations or convictions elicited from prospective employees. Given the nature and size of the Club, the number of its employees end patrons, and management's knowledge, or suspicion, that narcotics violations had occurred on the premises--the licensee took inadequate steps to (1) monitor activities on the premises, and (2) detect narcotics violations and prevent their occurrence. It employed off-duty Omni security guards only during times when business activity was greatest. At all other times, it relied on its employees for surveillance and security. The place where narcotics violations were most likely to occur--the bathroom facilities on two floors--were monitored by a single valet with minimal security training and who could neither speak nor understand English. The security efforts by the licensee were directed more to controlling disturbing or offensive behavior by patrons than pretending violations of law from occurring on the premises, or taking forceful action when such violations were detected. The quality of the licensee's surveillance program is illustrated by an experiment conducted by Beverage Officer Delmonte. On January 14, 1981--while at the Club with Beverage Officer Marrero--he observed several persons in the men's bathroom with running eyes and noses. During that same visit, Officer Marrero observed several waiters and a patron in the bathroom "sniffing something through their nostrils." (Tr. 22-I-78.) The Respondent's valet was also present in the bathroom at the time. On Officer Delmonte's next visit to the Club--January 27, 1981--he decided to conduct an experiment because of the suspicious activities observed on January 14, 1981. He went to the bathroom with a dollar bill rolled into a small tube; he placed it to his nostril and pretended to inhale something. The valet came in, observed this behavior, and acted surprised. Delmonte then acted embarrassed, smiled, and placed the dollar back in his pocket. After the valet handed him a kleenex, Delmonte exited the bathroom with the valet following him. At the foyer, the valet spoke with an older lady wearing a dark dress; the lady then engaged in a casual conversation with Delmonte and Enid Epstein--who was tending bar. Nothing further occurred in response to Officer Delmonte's experiment. (Testimony of Delmonte, Mendel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clerk, Terminello, Marrero, Guerre, Robertson, Cachaldora, Puig; R-3, R-7.) Respondent's suggested findings of fact are adopted to the extent they establish: (1) Between November 23, 1980, and January 28, 1981, law enforcement officers made numerous undercover visits to the Club when they did not, or were unable to purchase illicit narcotics on the premises; (2) During undercover visits during the period in question--except for the January 14, 1881, incident in the men's bathroom end the incidents alleged in Counts 1 through 7--the officers did not observe anyone using or selling illicit narcotics or marijuana. Moreover, two off-duty police officers who sometimes socially visited the Club-- and were encouraged to do so by Respondent--did not observe any narcotics violations taking place; (3) Each sale of cocaine, as alleged, was preceded by a law enforcement officer's solicitation to purchase; and (4) Unless observed in the act, it is difficult to ascertain--with certainty--whether a person uses, sells, or is inclined to use or sell narcotics. (Testimony of Stillman, Diaz, Sokolowski, Delmonte, Mandel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clark, Terminello, Marrero, Guerra, Robertson.) IX. Appropriate Disciplinary Penalty No aggravating evidence was offered by the Division to justify permanent license revocation; no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent, or its manager, has been shown. Respondent has no record of prior infractions of the Beverage Law. There is no evidence which indicates that Respondent's operator, Alex Cachaldora, was aware that several of his employees were involved with illicit narcotics. In light of the facts of this case, permanent revocation of Respondent's beverage license is unwarranted; rather, a 90-day suspension is appropriate, less any days during which Respondent's beverage license has been effectively suspended by emergency order of the Division. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Both parties have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration in this proceeding. To the extent such findings have not been adopted or incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, It is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order suspending Respondent's beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, for 90 days; provided, however, to the extent Respondent's license may have been effectively suspended by prior emergency order of the Division, the period of such emergency suspension should be subtracted from the 90-day period. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1981, 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 10th day of June, 1981.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Bay Street, Inc., trading as Howard's G" String, is located at 102 E. Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings, (Beverage License No. 269l9, Series 4-COP) Case No. 81-1825 contains ten counts, five of which were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner. The remaining counts involve alleged lewd and lascivious acts and an alleged offer to commit prostitution. These charges were based on an undercover investigation by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in May, June, August and September, 1980. The testimony of Officer Beacham established that on May 8, 1980, the dancer Karen Wood rubbed a male patron's groin with her buttocks and the dancer Rosetta Smith allowed a male patron to rub her groin area. This conduct took place while the dancers were performing for individual customers. In both cases, their breasts were bare and in close proximity to the patrons' faces. The testimony of Officer Bennett established that on June 26, 1980, the dancer Catherine E. Maryon permitted a male patron to fondle her groin area and to fondle her nude breasts. This conduct continued over a period of about five minutes while Maryon was performing for the patron. The testimony of Officer Hall established that on August 30, 1980, the dancer Darlene Veldon Hughes allowed a male patron to massage her genital area and the insides of her legs while she was performing for him. She wore a bikini brief, but was otherwise nude during this procedure. The testimony of Officer Perret established that on September 2, 1980, the dancer Trudy A. Blincoe offered to engage in sexual intercourse with him for $100. This was established by the nature of their discussion and her statement that she would give "no oral sex, just straight sex." Petitioner conducted a separate investigation of Respondent in February, 1981, through its beverage officers who visited the licensed premises in undercover capacities. This investigation culminated in the 29 charges contained in Case No. 81-1824. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink on February 11, 1981. The drink was delivered by the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who received the money for the drink. Kathy also approached Johnson and the dancer Laura on that date, and asked if Laura wanted another drink. Laura then asked Johnson for a drink, which he purchased from Kathy. Johnson's testimony further established that the dancer Ursala Kadlecik asked him to purchase a drink for her on February 27, 1981. The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 18, 1981, the dancer Barbie asked him to buy drinks for her on two occasions. Arguelles purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 11, 1981, the dancers Susan and Elizabeth each asked him to buy drinks for them, and on February 14 and 27, 1981, Susan again asked Lachman to buy drinks for her. On February 18, 1981, the dancers Karen, Angie and April each asked Lachman to buy drinks for them. He purchased the drinks as requested on each of these occasions. The testimony of Beverage Officer Balaguer established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink and on February 18, 1981, the dancer Laura asked him to buy her a drink. He purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that on February 25, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink. She repeated the request and Sams purchased the drink. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Marty approached him and performed her dance at his table. During this procedure, she rubbed his hand against her groin and also held it against her nude breast. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that the dancer Susan performed dances at his table on February 25 and 27, 1981. On each occasion she rubbed her nude breasts against his face. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 5, 1981, the dancer Susan suggested a "date" to him. She stated that the price was $75 for the night and $25 as a penalty for her to leave the bar. She also stated that they would go to a motel and she would do "anything he wanted." Johnson's testimony further established that on February 11, 1981, the dancer Lisa suggested that she and Johnson go to a "party" at a motel. She stated that the price for this would be $30 for the bar plus either $50 for one- half hour, $100 for an hour or $200 for the whole-night. She also said Johnson could do "anything" so long as he did not "get rough." The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 28, 1981, the dancer Lucy Brightwell offered to "go out" with him. She stated that the charge for this service was $100, which included $25 to leave the bar. She told Arguelles that he could do anything he wanted except "the back door." She also motioned to her vaginal area and stated, "straight fuck." The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 27, 1981, he discussed leaving the bar with the dancer Ramona Strickland. The discussion involved three dancers leaving with the three undercover beverage officers (Lachman, Sams and Rowe) . Strickland stated that the price would include $25 for each dancer to leave the bar and a total charge of $248. Lachman later paid the bartender-waitress, Kathy, $88 for the three dancers to leave the bar. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that he discussed going to a hotel room with the dancer Belinda on February 27, 1981. She stated that the charge for this would be $25 to leave the bar and $50 per one-half hour for each dancer. The testimony of Beverage Officer Rowe established that on February 25, 1981, he discussed "going out" with the dancers Laura and Belinda. He asked Laura if he would "get his money s worth," and she said that he would and that she was "good in bed." Rowe continued the discussion on February 27, 1981, when he asked Laura if the "deal was still on." She stated that it was and asked him if he had made room arrangements. Laura also stated that she did not want "to fuck" in the same room with others. Rowe also discussed the transaction with the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who told him to meet the dancers at the side door and to have them back in 30 minutes. Although no records were produced to establish that the dancers identified herein were employed by Respondent, the fact of employment was evident from the control exercised over them by the bartender-waitress, their costumes, their periodic dances on stage and their movements from one customer to another while performing individual dances and collecting fees for this service. Testimony in this regard was given by all Petitioner's witnesses and was not rebutted by Respondent. It was not shown that the identification of some dancers by their first names or nicknames only created any ambiguity in the charges or prejudice to Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find Respondent guilty as charged in Counts l through 7, 9 through 17, 19, 21 through 24 and 26 through 29, Case No. 81-1824, and Count 9, Case No. 81-1825. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss all other charges against Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner suspend Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 26-919 for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1982, 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 26th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1975, H. R. Hall was working as an undercover detective for the Jacksonville Vice Squad. During the evening of that date Detective Hall entered the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store, sat in a booth and ordered a beer. Sarah Lynn Swain, LuAnn Marie Docker and Lee Ann Remm, on the evening of February 21, 1975, were dressed as topless dancers and performed as topless dancers in the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store. The three foregoing persons were agents, servants or employees of the Respondent. While seated in a booth Detective Hall observed Sarah Lynn Swain dancing topless between the legs of a male customer, who was fondling her buttocks while she placed her breast in the customer's mouth. Also while seated in the booth, Detective Hall observed LuAnn Marie Dockery dancing topless for a male customer and allowing the customer to fondle her buttocks. While in the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store on February 21, 1975, Lee Ann Remm performed a topless dance for Detective Hall and while so dancing straddled his leg and undulated back and forth. Further, she attempted to place her breast in Detective Hall's mouth. Detective Hall paid her $2.00 to dance for him, but did not discuss with her, nor request the privilege of touching her. The Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-1334,4-COP and the licensed premises are the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent is guilty of serving alcoholic beverages to minors and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 58-01997, series 2-COP, for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. The licensed premises were located at 536 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. Respondent abandoned the premises at the end of August, 1989. The bar owned and operated by Respondent is no longer in operation, and the license is no longer active. On at least three occasions prior to the incident in question, one or more representatives of Petitioner had warned Lester Thomas, the sole shareholder and officer of Respondent, that he or his company's employees were serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons. On one of these occasions, Mr. Thomas complained, "Every time you come around here, there are problems. You catch me." At about 11:15 p.m. on August 5, 1989, two representatives of Petitioner entered the Negril Cove bar and observed Mary Ann Carmody, age 16 years, consuming an alcoholic beverage that a companion had purchased from Respondent. At all material times on that evening, Mr. Thomas himself was tending the bar at Negril Cove. At no time was Ms. Carmody asked for any identification. Under the circumstances, Mr. Thomas permitted Ms. Carmody to consume the alcoholic beverage on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking the license of Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Jerry S. Luxenburg 1214 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about January 22, 1992, in DBR Case No. TA-39-91-0555. The Notice to Show Cause alleges that the Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., d/b/a Mako's Bay Club, through its employees, sold alcoholic beverages to minors on November 6, 1991, in violation of Sections 562.11(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). The Respondent denies the charges and also asserts mitigating circumstances and the Florida Responsible Vendor Act defense under Section 561.706, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., operates several establishments known as Mako's Bay Club in Pinellas County, Florida. All are licensed for consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. All are relatively large establishments that feature multiple bars and dancing. All cater to a relatively young clientele. All stress strict compliance with the Beverage Law, including the prohibition against sales to minors, and all employees receive training approved by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which includes training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees receive this training either before they begin working or within approximately a month of beginning work. In addition, the management of the establishments hold periodic meetings that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. On or about January 23, 1991, the Respondent opened a Mako's Bay Club at 901 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida, under alcoholic beverage license number 39-03295, Series 4-COP. Before the establishment opened for business, all employees received training approved by the Department under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which included training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees have received this training either before beginning work or within approximately a month of beginning work. Generally, new employees are not permitted to serve alcoholic beverages until completing this training, except under supervision. In addition, the management holds monthly meetings with all staff that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. 1/ The Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, at least, allows underage clientele (18 years old and up) to enter the premises on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On these nights, as on all others, clientele who appear to be relatively young are "carded" at the entrance. If they are under 21, the back of their right hand is marked in permanent ink with a large "X". If they are 21 or over, they are given a tight-fitting band to wear around their wrist. Bartenders and servers know they can only serve someone with the wrist band and without the "X" mark. If a customer has neither, and appears to be possibly under 21, the bartender or waitress is to ask to see proof of age. The bar's bouncers circulate during the evening and are alert to underage drinking, loose wrist bands, and underaged clientele in the company of authorized drinkers having more than one drink in front of them. Although the Department has investigated complaints concerning underage sales at establishments operated by the Respondent, prior to November 6, 1991, the Department never made a case of selling to minors against any establishment operated by the Respondent, and the Department has considered the Respondent to be in compliance with the Beverage Law prohibiting sales to minors. In response to complaints of underage drinking in the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, the Department conducted an investigation that included sending undercover underage operatives (aides) into the establishment under the supervision of Department special agents. The aides are selected from among applicants who are college students 18 to 19 years old and who look their age. Often, they aspire to careers in law enforcement. They are instructed to carry correct identification, not to dress to appear older than they are, not to try to deceive the management and employees of the establishment they are investigating, and to give their correct age and identification if asked. Following these instructions, they are to enter the premises and see if they can buy a drink. They operate in pairs, and each pair is accompanied by special agent, who keeps them in sight, particularly when they are attempting to make a buy. The investigation of the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa took place on November 6, 1991. Three teams of special agents and aides entered the premises separately between approximately 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. After a short period of orienting themselves and spreading out in the establishment, the aides went to work. One, Asim Brown, a young-looking 18 year-old, ordered a Budweiser beer from a waitress the second time she approached the table where he and 19 year- old Belvin Sanchez were sitting. (Sanchez declined.) The waitress was new and, against normal procedures, was pressed into service before she was completely trained. She did not ask Brown's age or ask to see proof of age. She left, placed Brown's order at a bar, and later returned to the bar to get the beer to serve at their table. Brown paid for the drink. The transaction was observed by Special Agent Powell, who was seated nearby. Sanchez later went to the "front bar" where he ordered a wine cooler while being observed by Special Agent Powell. He put the money on the bar counter while waiting for his drink. The bartender served him and took the money. Brown went to another bar where he ordered another Budweiser beer, this time from a female bartender. She served him, and he paid for the beer. 19-year old Ricky Salgado, who was teamed with Special Agent Hamilton and aide Steve Towe, also ordered a wine cooler at the front bar. He was served and paid for his drink. Special Agent Hamilton observed this transaction. Apparently about this time, the bartender recognized Special Agent Hamilton and spread the word for the staff to be extra careful to be in compliance with the Beverage Law. The next time aide Sanchez tried to buy a wine cooler at the front bar, the bartender escorted him to a manager and had him evicted. When aide Towe tried to buy a drink, he was evicted, too. The female bartender who had sold beer to Brown later evicted both of the other aides, who were 17 year-old females, as well as two other minors, for trying to buy alcoholic beverages. The evictions ended the investigation. Later, the special agents returned to arrest those accused of selling to minors and to serve a Notice to Show Cause on the Respondent. The Respondent attacked the credibility of the Department's special agents and aides, essentially accusing them of fabricating the evidence, primarily on the basis that: (1) the Mako's Bay Club staff knew Special Agent Hamilton was on the premises and was being especially cautious; and (2) Brown could not have been served Budweiser. As to the first point, the evidence was not clear when Special Agent Hamilton was spotted and when all the staff became advised of his presences. As to the second point, the Respondent contends that the waitress from whom Brown and Powell say he purchased the Budweiser beer remembers that she did not serve any Budweiser that night. A bartender testified that she was assigned to his bar and was required by the bar's procedures to place her orders through him. He had $1 Corona specials at his bar, and he contends that it would have been rare for someone to order a Budweiser at his bar, rare enough for him and the waitress to remember it. He also claims to have checked his drink orders on the night in question and to have found no order for Budweiser beer. 2/ But the evidence is clear that the waitress had not completed her training and was working without supervision for the first time. She may not have followed all of the Mako's Bay Club's usual procedures. In addition, the evidence revealed that she was very upset at having been accused of selling to a minor because she was about to join the military and did not want a criminal record to come out of the incident. She had a motive to attempt to defend herself, perhaps by telling untruths about what happened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1992.
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 31, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, licensed under the beverage laws as a package store, and/or their agent, servant or employee, to wit: Bossie Mae Browdy did allow or permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their licensed premises, contrary to Rule 7A-3.05, Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on or about November 1, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, licensed under the beverage laws as Browdy's Mini Market with a 2-APS license to wit: Bossie Mae Browdy did allow gambling (card) on the licensed premises, contrary to Section 849.08, Florida Statutes and in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At present, and on October 31, 1975 and November 1, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy are and were the holders of a beverage license with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage number 69-299, 2-APS. On October 31, 1975, Eugene Fogel, a Division of Beverage enforcement officer entered the premises licensed by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, which was operated by the Respondents at Avenue B on Chuluota Road, Oviedo, Florida. While in the store he observed an unknown black female consuming a beverage which was marked Millers High-Life. This consumption was taking place in the presence of the Respondent, Bossie Mae Browdy, and in the course of the consumption a conversation was taking place between the unknown black female and Bossie Mae Browdy. The bottle which Officer Fogel observed was marked with identifying information which the officer based upon his experience, felt indicated that it contained an alcoholic beverage. On November 1, 1975, officer Fogel returned to the licensed premises of the Respondents and entered into a card game in a porch like area which is immediately at the front of the store and connected to the store. This card game was between Fogel and several black males who were participating in a card game when he approached. The game took place over 45 minutes and money was exchanged at 25 cents a game for the winner, for a total amount of approximately $2.00. During the course of the game, Bossie Mae Browdy came to the door and looked out at the card game being played.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, be fined in the amount of $100 for the offense as established through this administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 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: Charles Curtis, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Carl Thompson, Esquire 25 South Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding Of Facts and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that petitioner Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco,enter a final order: Holding respondent Clarece Hicks d/b/a Sand-spur Saloon guilty under the third charge in the Notice To Show Cause; Imposing a civil penalty of $500; and Dismissing the other charges in the Notice To Show Cause. Jurisdiction is retained for purposes of the ruling on the Division's Motion For Costs And Attorneys Fees, served February 25, 1985, filed simultaneously with this Recommended Order and for purposes of determining the Division's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1985.
