The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting prostitution activity on his licensed premises. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses John Harris, Kelvin Davis, Carlos Bauxalli, Lewis Terminello, Hugo Gomez, Louis Viglione, Keith Bernard Hamilton, and Alfonso Scott Julious. Respondent called as witnesses Isaac Dweck, Gary Arthur, Irene Madden, Collins Jones, Mary Scott, Debbie Heenan, Judy Pearson, Joe E. Clements, Cecil Rolle, and the Respondent himself, Eddie Lee Pittman. Petitioner offered and had admitted a videotape which was viewed during the hearing. Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Petitioner also offered a composite exhibit containing police reports relating to the licensed premises for the years 1981 and 1982. That composite exhibit was admitted as hearsay to corroborate the testimony of the police officers relating to the reputation of the licensed premises. These police records were of very limited probative value and no finding of fact was based upon these records. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was the holder of beverage license No. 23-371, Series 2-COP. The license is issued to the licensed premises at 1772 N.W. 79th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and was originally issued to Respondent on October 6, 1965. On the evening of March 22, 1983, Beverage Officer Kelvin Davis visited the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn, in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity in the licensed premises. Officer Davis was accompanied by Beverage Officer Eddie Bauxalli. After entering the licensed premises Officer Davis was approached by a white female named Elnora Moore who engaged him in conversation. The conversation led to a discussion of voter registration cards and Ms. Moore stated that a voter registration card could get you out of jail on a misdemeanor charge. Officer Davis asked why she needed a card for that purpose and Ms. Moore said because of solicitation. She then asked Officer Davis if he would like to be solicited and asked how much money he had. He responded that he had twenty dollars and she said that would get him a "straight." "Straight" is slang or street language for sexual intercourse. He agreed to the price but told her he also had a friend (Officer Bauxalli). Ms. Moore offered to service both men for $100. Officer Davis and Officer Bauxalli agreed to this offer and the three of them prepared to leave. The conversation between Ms. Moore and Officer Davis took place next to the bar where the officers were seated. This was approximately three to five feet from the cash register where the bartender on duty was working. The conversation took place in a normal tone of voice. As Officers Davis and Bauxalli and Ms. Moore began to leave, a white female named Peggy Schultz yelled across the bar to Officer Bauxalli and asked where he was going. Officer Bauxalli yelled back that he was going to have a good time. In response, Ms. Schultz yelled back "How can you have a good time without a date?" Officer Bauxalli responded that he would figure something out. At this point Ms. Schultz walked over to Officer Bauxalli. Ms. Schultz asked Officer Bauxalli if he wanted a "date" and he asked what is a "date." She responded that a "date" is a "straight" for $20 or a "straight" and a "blow job" for $25. He agreed to a "date" and Ms. Schultz then told him to drive around to the back and she and Ms. Moore would meet them at the back door. She also stated that the owner did not like the girls to go out the front door. Officers Bauxalli and Davis then left the bar, drove around to the back door of the licensed premises and picked up Ms. Moore and Ms. Schultz, who were waiting just inside the back door of the lounge. While Officers Bauxalli and Davis were in the licensed premises, the bar was pretty crowded and there was a lot of noise from people talking. At the time Ms. Schultz solicited Officer Bauxalli, she spoke in a normal tone of voice while they stood approximately four or five feet from the cash register on the bar. Ms. Schultz was dressed in a low-cut blue silky dress that was made of a material which you could easily see through. She was wearing only panties underneath the dress. The owner, Mr. Pittman, was observed in the licensed premises on the evening of March 22, but there was no evidence that he observed or overheard any of the discussions between the two beverage officers and Ms. Schultz and Ms. Moore. On the evening of September 17, 1983, at approximate1y. 10:A5 p.m., Beverage Officer Louis J. Terminello went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Immediately upon entering the licensed premises he was approached by a white female named Michelle Orfino. The bar was pretty crowded and there were a number of females in the bar and poolroom area who by their dress appeared to be prostitutes. These women were mingling with the men at the bar and in the poolroom area. A number of couples were exiting through the back entrance. When Ms. Orfino approached Officer Terminello, she walked up to him and asked if he was looking for a "date." He asked her what a "date" was and she said "a blow job." She then asked if he wanted one and Officer Terminello responded "yes." She told him the price would be $20 plus $5 for the room. As they had been talking Officer Terminello, accompanied by Ms. Orfino, walked into the poolroom area. After agreeing to the price, Officer Terminello took Ms. Orfino by the arm and started to walk out the front door of the lounge. She stopped him and said that they had to use the back door because Eddie does not allow them to leave through the front door. She then told him to drive around back and Officer Terminello responded that his car was just outside the back door. She then walked with him out the back entrance and into the parking lot. As they walked to his car Officer Terminello observed the Respondent, Eddie Pittman, in the parking lot. After driving away, Officer Terminello placed Ms. Orfino under arrest. Ms. Orfino was dressed in a very low-cut latex body suit. For at least three nights prior to September 17, Officer Terminello, while on surveillance, had observed a continuous pattern of a patron entering the bar, coming back out and driving his car to the rear entrance. A woman would then come out the back door, get in the car and they would drive away. Twenty minutes or so later the car would come back and the girl would get out and go back in. After the arrest of September 17, Officer Terminello returned to the bar in the early morning hours of September 18 to arrest two other women for prostitution. The Respondent had not been advised of the arrests on September 17. On the evening of September 15, 1983, Beverage Officer Louis Viglione went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. After entering the licensed premises he took a seat at the bar near the rear entrance. Shortly after entering, he was joined by two black females named Veronica and Angie. He purchased a beer for each of the two women and the three of them engaged in conversation about good times, good loving, and Pink House. The Pink House is a boarding house in the area where the licensed premises is located and is used by prostitutes for "dates." A "date" is a slang or street term used commonly by prostitutes to refer to sexual intercourse or other sexual acts for pay. During this conversation, Veronica stated that one hour with her would cost $40 or $50 and Angie stated that she charged $100 an hour. As an excuse, Officer Viglione then stated that he did not have enough money because he wanted two women at once. He remained in the lounge approximately one more hour and left. On this particular evening Veronica was wearing a short white dress and Angie was wearing a blue print dress with white stockings. Both were dressed in what Officer Viglione described as normal dress. Several other women in the lounge were dressed in a very provocative manner and appeared by their dress to be prostitutes. The lounge was approximately 3/4 full of patrons, but it was not particularly noisy or boisterous. There were also several women outside the front and rear entrances of the licensed premises who appeared to be prostitutes. The area where the licensed premises is located is an area which has a visible concentration of prostitutes and has a reputation as an area where prostitution is prevalent. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on September 16, 1983, Beverage Officer Keith Bernard Hamilton entered Eddie's Dive Inn. Upon entering the lounge, Officer Hamilton took a seat at the west end of the bar. There were approximately 40 or 50 male patrons in the lounge and at least 30 women. The women were scantily dressed in very revealing clothes and were observed by Officer Hamilton to be moving around the bar stopping and talking with the men. Several of the women left the bar after talking to one of the men who also left the bar. While seated at the bar, Officer Hamilton was approached by a young black female named Anna. Anna had been talking to a white male seated next to Officer Hamilton. She asked Officer Hamilton what he was interested in tonight. He asked what she had and she asked if he wanted to fuck. She also stated that for $35 plus $5 for the room she would give him a "suck and fuck." He said he would wait for a while and Anna left but returned several times during the evening. After Anna left, another woman walked up to Officer Hamilton and asked if he dated. He was short with her and she moved over and began talking to the white male seated next to him. A few minutes later, Officer Hamilton went to the bathroom and was stopped by a black female named Carol Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence stated that she needed money and asked if he could help her out. Officer Hamilton asked what did she have and Ms. Lawrence responded "a suck and fuck for $35." Officer Hamilton agreed to this but said he wanted to wait a while. She then left, but approached him at least three more times that evening. On the evening of September 16, 1983, there were three security guards at the licensed premises. They primarily remained outside where they regulated the crowd outside the lounge. One of the guards told one of the females that she shouldn't leave with a guy but should wait inside the rear door. The guard did not object to the woman and man leaving in the man's car. On this particular evening, the Respondent was present at the licensed premises until approximately 11:00 p.m. He was in and out of his office during the course of the evening. On September 17, 1983, at approximately 9:30 p.m. Officer Hamilton returned to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. When Officer Hamilton entered the lounge, the Respondent was seated at the bar. The activity in the bar was about the same as the night of September 16, and there was a smaller crowd. There were about 20 women in the bar. These women were walking around the bar talking to the men. There was a man seated next to Mr. Pittman who was being kissed by one of the women. After kissing the man she moved on and began talking to another male patron. Shortly after entering the lounge one of the women in the lounge looked at Officer Hamilton and winked. Later, when Officer Hamilton was in the rear of the lounge near the bathrooms, be observed this same woman standing near the rear entrance. He asked her where she was going and she responded that she would be back. She then offered him a "suck and fuck" for $20 plus the cost of the room. As she walked out the rear entrance Officer Hamilton agreed to the offer. That same evening Officer Hamilton was again approached by Anna whom he had met the previous evening. She asked if he was ready and again told him the price of a "suck and fuck." He agreed and she told him to leave out the front door and she would wait around back. Officer Hamilton left the lounge and drove his car to the rear entrance where Anna was waiting just inside the screened door of the back entrance. On the evening of September 15, 1983, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Alfonso Scott Julious entered the licensed premises. There were several men seated inside the bar and several women were walking around the bar. The women were dressed casually and some were wearing short dresses which were low cut in the front. After entering the licensed premises Officer Julious observed women from time to time leave the bar with a man and then come back. Each of the women exited through the rear door. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Officer Julious was approached by a white female named Gail Sylvia James. She asked if he wanted a "date" and he said what is a "date." She then said that she would "fuck him and suck him" for $30. He responded that he would be around for a while and would get back to her. Officer Julious left the lounge at approximately 10:30 p.m. During the evening Officer Julious had overheard other men being solicited and observed at least five men leave with women. On this evening Officer Julious considered the women's dress to be casual, nice dresses. Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 16, 1983. After entering the lounge he was approached by a white female named Patricia. She asked him if he wanted a "date" and he asked "what is a "date?" She then said she would fuck him for $30. Officer Julious responded that he would be around and would get back to her. Some time later in the evening Gail James, whom he had met the previous night, approached Officer Julious and asked if he was ready for a "date." She said she would go half and half, "suck and fuck" for $30. He told her he would be around for a while. Officer Julious was also approached by a woman named Mindy Jo Gelfin, who asked if he wanted a "date." He asked "What is a date?" and she responded "half and half, fuck and suck" for $40. He also did not accept this offer. Officer Julious left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 p.m. On Saturday, September 17, 1983, Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:05 p.m. The Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was in the lounge. Immediately after entering the licensed premises, Officer Julious was approached by Mindy Gelfin, who asked if he was ready for a "date." Officer Julious stated that he would be around all night and Mindy said she would come back. Later, Mindy returned and asked if he was ready and he responded "yes." He asked if they could go to the Holiday Inn and she asked if he was a cop. Officer Julious said "Do I look like a cop?" She then asked if she could pat him down. He said "yes" and she patted him down. She then said that she wanted to go in a friend's car. She borrowed the car and drove to the Holiday Inn where she was arrested. At the time of her arrest Mindy Jo Gelfin was residing with Collins Winston Jones and his girlfriend. At the time of the final hearing, Mindy Gelfin was continuing to live at Mr. Jones' residence. Mr. Jones' girlfriend had allowed her to move in. Mr. Jones is the manager of Eddie's Dive Inn. On September 29, 1983, Detective Hugo Gomez of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. Detective Gomez was accompanied by Detectives Manny Gonzalez and Ray Gonzalez. Detective Gomez stood at the west end of the bar and his two partners sat at the bar next to him. After they ordered a beer, they were approached by a white female named Catrina Gibides. She sat down between the two officers who were seated. She asked what they were doing and told Detective Gomez he looked like a cop. He then pulled up his pants legs to show he was wearing no socks and she said "you can't be a cop" and grabbed his groin. She then began playing with Manny Gonzalez's leg and asked if they wanted a "date." She was wearing a very loose chiffon type outfit and her breasts were barely covered. The officers who were seated had been pretending not to speak English and Ms. Gibides asked Detective Gomez to ask Manny Gonzales if he wanted to go across the street to a motel with her. She said that she would perform intercourse and fellatio for $25 plus $5. She then called over another white female named Lisa Brown, who also began talking about going across the street to a motel. Lisa Brown said her price was $25 plus $5 for the room. They then discussed going in different cars. During these conversations the bar was crowded and Eddie Pittman was in the lounge approximately 8 to 10 feet from where the officers were located. It was pretty loud in the bar. There were also barmaids working behind the bar. Isaac Dweck is a regular patron of Eddie's Dive Inn. He goes there primarily on Sunday afternoons to watch football and shoot pool. He is almost never in the licensed premises after 9:00 p.m. and averages going to the lounge four or five times a month. He has never been solicited for prostitution in the lounge and has never overheard someone else being solicited. Gary Arthur goes to Eddie's Dive Inn two or three times a week and generally leaves some time between 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. Once or twice he has stayed until 11:00 or 12:00 p.m. He has never been solicited for prostitution and has never overheard anyone else being solicited. He has been going to Eddie's Dive Inn for five or six years. The Respondent has a policy against drugs, fighting, solicitation, and profanity and also has a dress code. He employs 11 full-time employees at the lounge and three or four of these employees are security guards who work at front and back doors. The Respondent has a closed circuit television system with cameras on the cash register and pool room area. The screen is in Respondent's office. Over the past 12 years the manager, Collins Jones, has barred 12 or 13 women from the bar after he heard them soliciting in the bar. In the twenty years he has operated Eddie's Dive Inn, the Respondent has barred approximately 20 women from coming into the licensed premises because of prostitution. Once the women are arrested for prostitution, they are barred from the premises. There are signs posted in the bar prohibiting soliciting. Irene Madden works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has been instructed to not serve known prostitutes and that if she heard someone soliciting she should diplomatically ask them to not do that and inform Mr. Pittman or the manager. Mary Scott works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has heard women solicit in the lounge for prostitution. She does not have the authority to ask someone who solicits for prostitution to leave the premises. She does have authority to ask people to leave who are in violation of the dress code. In September, 1972, the Respondent was charged in an administrative proceeding against his license with permitting prostitution on the licensed premises. He was also charged criminally with permitting prostitution. Respondent paid a $350 administrative fine and his license was placed on probation for the remainder of the license year. He pleaded guilty to the criminal charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Department of Business Regulation Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur M. Garel, Esquire 40 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, post- hearing memoranda and briefs, and the entire record compiled herein, thereby make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material to the allegations and charges in this proceeding, Respondent, Riviera Resort Hotel Associates, Ltd., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license No. 16-615-S, Series 4-COP, located at 2080 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. On May 8, 1984, at about 9:30 p.m., Officer D'Ambrosia entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity with a confidential source (CI). Based on a telephone complaint, Officer D'Ambrosia was requested by his supervisors to conduct an investigation to determine if the complaint was meritorious. The main lounge in the licensed premises has a front and back entrance. The front entrance is through the main lobby and the back door leads to a parking lot. Upon entering the premises, Officer D'Ambrosia and CI approached the main bar. Sergeant Pat Roberts was at the main bar area as a backup officer. There were approximately four other patrons at the bar. Officer D'Ambrosia and CI made contact with the on-duty bartender, Tommy Brownyard. After Brownyard served them drinks and the three of them engaged in general conversation, CI asked Brownyard if he had the "stuff" and if the price of $80.00 was still the same. Brownyard affirmed, stating that it would be in three bags, a one-gram and two half gram bags. CI then turned to Officer D'Ambrosia and stated the price of two grams would be $160.00. Officer D'Ambrosia counted out eight $20.00 bills and laid them on top of the bar counter. Brownyard left the bar area and entered the men's bathroom. After two or three minutes, Brownyard left the restroom, walked back to the bar and approached Officer D'Ambrosia and CI. Brownyard placed what looked like a pack of Marlboro cigarettes on top of the counter. Officer D'Ambrosia spread out the eight $20.00 bills on top of the counter in a manner that Brownyard could see it and Brownyard picked up the money while facing Officer D'Ambrosia and counted it behind the bar. Brownyard placed the currency in his pants pocket. Officer D'Ambrosia picked up the Marlboro box, opened it, and pulled out three clear plastic zip-lock-bags containing a white powdery substance. After looking at the bags, Officer D'Ambrosia placed them back into the box and placed a box in his shirt pocket. Sergeant pat Roberts observed the transaction. The three plastic bags which Officer D'Ambrosia purchased from Brownyard contained cocaine, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. As stated, the lounge only had, at most, four patrons besides Officer D'Ambrosia, CI and Roberts. The conversation with Brownyard about drugs occurred in a normal tone of voice. Officer D'Ambrosia did not attempt to conceal the purchase of drugs at the bar. Before Officer D'Ambrosia and CI left the bar, they spoke to Brownyard about the best time to buy more cocaine. Brownyard stated that Thursday (May 10, 1984) would be good but that Officer D'Ambrosia or CI should first call. Brownyard said that if Officer D'Ambrosia or CI wanted one gram of coke, to call and say "Is the one girl in there tonight?" and if Officer D'Ambrosia or the CI wanted two grams of cocaine, to call and ask "If the two girls are tonight." Brownyard would respond yes or no to the questions. After Officer D'Ambrosia and CI left, Sergeant Roberts had a conversation with Brownyard. Brownyard told Sergeant Roberts that he worked "directly for the owners" and that he "ran the placed" apparently referring to the lounge. On May 10, 1984, at about 9:20 p.m., Officer D'Ambrosia and CI went to the licensed premises and took seats at the bar. Officer Olive had arrived about 15 minutes earlier to be the backup officer. Officer Oliva was seated at the bar across from Officer D'Ambrosia and CI with a clear view of both D'Ambrosia and CI. There were at most five unidentified patrons at the bar on that evening. Brownyard was attending the bar. Officer D'Ambrosia and CI greeted at bar and, after approximately ten minutes, Brownyard approached Office D'Ambrosia and CI and stated "Those two girls are here if you are interested." Officer D'Ambrosia affirmed and Brownyard told Officer D'Ambrosia and CI that the cocaine would be in 2 one-gram bags. Brownyard then left the bar and walked to the area of the men's restroom. After approximately one minute, Brownyard left the area of the restroom and walked back to the bar. Brownyard approached Officer D'Ambrosia and CI. Brownyard placed a matchbox on the top of the bar and looked at Officer D'Ambrosia. Officer D'Ambrosia placed $160.00 on the bar counter and picked up the matchbox. Brownyard picked up the money and, after counting it, placed it in his pocket. Officer D'Ambrosia opened the matchbox and noticed two clear plastic zip-lock bags containing a white powdery substance. Office Olive observed the transaction. The two plastic bags bought and received from Brownyard contained cocaine. The conversation with Brownyard about drugs occurred in a normal tone of voice and Officer D'Ambrosia made no effort to conceal the sale on the premises. On May 14, 1984, at approximately 9:15 p.m. Officer D'Ambrosia entered the Riviera Resort Motel. Officer D'Ambrosia walked to the bar and sat down. Officer Wheeler had arrived before Officer D'Ambrosia as the backup officer. Officer D'Ambrosia entered into a conversation with the on-duty bartender named Janette about Brownyard. Janette stated that Brownyard had been fired. Janette told Officer D'Ambrosia that Brownyard had been fired by Chi Che, the bar manager (Arturo Muniz). At approximately 9:45 p.m., a patron later identified as Benee Scola entered the bar. Approximately 15 minutes later, Janette received a phone call from Brownyard. Janette advised Brownyard that Officer D'Ambrosia was at the bar looking for him. Brownyard told Janette that he would be at the bar in approximately 45 minutes. Janette relayed this information to Officer D'Ambrosia and at approximately 10:45 p.m., Brownyard entered the bar and sat down. D'Ambrosia and Janette approached and greeted Brownyard. Office D'Ambrosia asked Brownyard if "The two girls were around." Brownyard affirmed and stated that the price would be $80.00 per gram. Janette was in a position to hear this conversation. Officer Wheeler moved to a different part of the bar to get a better view of D'Ambrosia, Brownyard and Janette and to talk to Benne Scola. Brownyard asked D'Ambrosia if he was still interested in the "two girls" and Officer D'Ambrosia affirmed. Brownyard then obtained two matchboxes from Janette, who asked him (Brownyard) if one of the matchboxes was for her. Brownyard said yes. Brownyard left the bar and walked toward the men's restroom. Approximately two minutes, Brownyard returned and sat next to D'Ambrosia, placing a matchbox on top of the bar counter. The two clear plastic zip-lock bags containing cocaine were inside the matchbook cover. Officer D'Ambrosia pulled some currency from his pocket, counted out eight $20.00 bills and handed Brownyard the money below the bar counter. Officer D'Ambrosia picked up the matchbook, examined the contents, and placed it in his shirt pocket. Officer Wheeler did not see the exchange of money but observed the remaining portion of the transaction. On that evening, Chi Che entered the premises and set down two bar stools from Brownyard. Brownyard told D'Ambrosia that he had an argument with Chi Che about the liquor to carry at the bar and about accepting bad traveler's checks. After five or ten minutes, Chi Che left the bar. Janette asked Brownyard to watch the bar while she used the restroom. Brownyard agreed. Brownyard left the bar area after Janette returned from the restroom. D'Ambrosia states that Scola asked him (D'Ambrosia) if he knew where she could get some "blow." D'Ambrosia stated that she would have to talk to Brownyard. Brownyard returned to the bar and Scola approached him and asked about the going rate for blow. Brownyard stated $80.00 for a gram and $40.00 for a half gram. Brownyard said that he could handle a half gram right now. Scola agreed and handed Brownyard some currency. Brownyard took the currency, left the bar, existed the premises and returned approximately five minutes later. Brownyard handed Scola a small plastic baggie. Officer D'Ambrosia left the bar at approximately 7:30 and Officer Wheeler left approximately 15 minutes later. The conversations between Brownyard, Janette and Officers D'Ambrosia, Wheeler and Scola concerning the purchase of drugs occurred in normal tones of voice. Officer D'Ambrosia made no attempt to conceal the transaction. On May 18, 1984, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Officer D'Ambrosia entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Janette was tending the bar. Officer Phillips was seated at the bar as the backup officer. Brownyard and Scola were also at the bar. Officer D'Ambrosia sat down and Brownyard approached him. D'Ambrosia asked Brownyard if he had any "stuff" with him tonight. Brownyard said "sure." D'Ambrosia asked if it was still the same price and Brownyard said "yes." D'Ambrosia said "OK." Brownyard left the bar and walked away from D'Ambrosia's view. About three minutes later Brownyard returned and placed a matchbox on the bar counter in front of D'Ambrosia. Officer D'Ambrosia pulled out four twenty dollar bills from his pocket and paid Brownyard. D'Ambrosia opened the match box up, lifted out a clear plastic zip lock bag containing suspected cocaine. Janette was in a position to see this transaction. Officer Phillips also observed this transaction. While tending bar, Janette spoke to Scola, "You want to go halves with me?" Scola stated that she would think about it since she had previously arranged a one half gram buy with Brownyard before officers D'Ambrosia and Phillips entered the bar. Janette later remarked that her boyfriend was later coming in with some medicine. Officer Phillips heard Scola and Janette discussing a cocaine deal. Janette told Scola it would be $35. Janette walked over to her boyfriend, Jeff Acosta, who gave her a small packet of aluminum foil. Janette gave the foil to Sonia and reminded her it was $35. Scola gave Janette two U.S. currency bills and told her to keep the rest as a tip. Janette gave Jeff the requested amount of the money. Scola later walked to the women's restroom. Officer Phillips later entered the women's restroom and observed Scola standing next to a toilet tank cover with an open packet of aluminum foil containing the suspected cocaine. Scola asked Officer Phillips to do a "line" with her, but Officer Phillips declined. Conversations at the bar area concerning the use of drugs occurred in a normal tone of voice. On May 25, 1984, at about 9:20 p.m., Officer Jenkins entered the licensed premises as a back up officer to Officer D'Ambrosia. At that time there were approximately six patrons in the bar area. Officer D'Ambrosia entered the premises approximately 9:25 and spoke to Janette about cocaine. Janette was told by Officer D'Ambrosia that the cocaine he bought from Brownyard was "poor quality" whereupon Janette allegedly admitted she was now dealing through her boyfriend Jeff. D'Ambrosia asked Janette if she would talk to Jeff about getting him some coke and she complied stating she would talk to him at about 10:10 p.m. when he (Jeff) entered the bar. D'Ambrosia approached and asked Jeff if he could get him an ounce and Jeff replied that he could. Later that night, D'Ambrosia and Jeff made a deal for one gram of coke that would be a sample for a future one ounce deal. According to D'Ambrosia, the purchase of one gram would take place on the next night, May 26, 1984. During that evening, Chi Che Muniz, the restaurant and lounge manager, entered the bar area. Officer D'Ambrosia approached Chi Che and told him that maybe Chi Che could pick up a woman if he did a couple of lines of coke. Chi Che refused. On May 26, 1984, at approximately 8:45 p.m., Officers D'Ambrosia and Jenkins entered the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter, Officer Aliva and Sergeant Roberts entered the bar. D'Ambrosia greeted Janette and had a general conversation with her. Janette asked D'Ambrosia if he had scored any cocaine and he reply "no." Janette stated that she would try and contact Jeff by phone because he had beeper. Janette made a short phone call from the bar and later told D'Ambrosia that she had left a message that he (D'Ambrosia) was at the bar. At approximately 9:30 p.m., a person later identified as Bill Hawkins entered the licensed premises. Bill approached Janette and told her that he was trying to locate some cocaine for her. Janette stated that she would buy a half from Bill for $35.00. Bill left the bar area and walked to the men's restroom. Officer Oliva went to the men's restroom. As Officer Oliva entered the restroom, he observed Bill changing clothes putting on a security uniform, complete with badge and night stick. Bill left the restroom and returned to the area. Bill told Officer D'Ambrosia that he worked part time as a security guard for Respondent on an as needed basis. At that time there were approximately 15 people in the lounge area. Bill Hawkins told Janette that the cocaine would be on the premises but that he would have to leave for a while to pick it up. Bill left for approximately 30 minutes and returned to the bar area. When he returned, he engaged in conversation with Bob Skirde. Janette later handed D'Ambrosia a small clear plastic zip-lock bag and asked D'Ambrosia to give it to Bill and tell him it was from me. D'Ambrosia complied with Janette's request. D'Ambrosia asked Bill if he had an extra half gram and Bill replied no that he could give D'Ambrosia "a nose full." Bill Hawkins then walked to the men's restroom where he found Officer Oliva who had previously arranged to buy a half gram of cocaine from Bill for $35. Bill asked Officer Olive to hold the door leading into the men's restroom while he did a line of coke. Officer D'Ambrosia observed Bob Skirde walk to the men's restroom and attempt to enter. Skirde was unable to enter the restroom inasmuch as Officer Olive was holding the door shut. Bill later approached Janette and asked her to get something to put it in. "Get me something." Janette handed Bill a napkin. Bill placed an object in the napkin, wrapped it up and gave it to Janette. Janette took the napkin and placed it in her purse. Janette later left the bar area and went to the restroom with what appeared to be the napkin she had received from Bill. Chi Che watched the bar while Janette was away. Officer D'Ambrosia states that he asked Janette "how was it?" and she replied "OK, but not as good as Jeff's." Later, Bill asked Officer D'Ambrosia to go to the men's restroom with him. Inside the restroom, Bill pulled out a clear plastic zip-lock bag containing suspected cocaine. Bill asked D'Ambrosia to do a couple of lines with him and he (D'Ambrosia) refused. D'Ambrosia asked Bill if he could purchase a half gram from him and Bill stated yes he would look into it. On June 1, 1984, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Officers D'Ambrosia and Jenkins separately entered the bar area. Officer Olive and Sergeant Roberts were there as back-up officers. D'Ambrosia talked to Jeff in Janette's presence about setting up a deal for an ounce of cocaine. Bill entered the premises and walked directly to Officer Jenkins. Bill and Officer Jenkins discussed cocaine and set up a deal for one gram to occur the next night at 7:00 p.m. On June 2, 1984, at approximately 7:10 p.m., Officer Jenkins entered the Riviera Resort Motel. Officer Jenkins asked an employee at the front desk if the bar was closed. The employee stated that it would be opened soon and suggest that she go to the patio bar. Sergeant Roberts was at the patio bar. Bill Hawkins called Officer Jenkins and they both walked to the patio bar. Janette was sitting on the patrons' side of the bar. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Janette left the patio bar to open the inside bar. Bill asked Beth, the patio bar attendant for a straw. Beth gave Bill a straw and stated that she knew Bill was not going to use it for his beer. Bill cut the straw to a length of approximately two inches and stated to Officer Jenkins "Let's go take care of business." Officer Jenkins and Bill walked to the inside bar. Janette was tending the bar and approximately two patrons were there. Officer Jenkins paid Bill $80 with money from her purse. Officer Jenkins extended the money to Bill over the bar counter and asked how the cocaine was packaged. Bill said "in a small plastic bag" and thereupon reached in his back pocket and pulled out his wallet. Bill laid the wallet on the bar counter and pulled back a flap which exposed a small clear plastic zip-lock bag containing suspected cocaine. Later analysis revealed the substance was in fact cocaine. This transaction was observed by Officer Roberts. Janette later came over to Bill and asked "if he wanted to work as a bell boy tonight because the front desk had called her." Bill was offered fond and drink for his services of helping with the luggage of the guests at the hotel. On June 4, 1984, Officer D'Ambrosia entered the Riviera Resort Motel and talked to Janette, the on-duty bartender. D'Ambrosia asked why Jeff was not at the bar. Janette replied that she would call Jeff about 10:30 or 11 p.m. and tell him that Officer D'Ambrosia was there at the bar. According to D'Ambrosia, Janette acknowledged that Jeff was to sell him (D'Ambrosia) a gram of cocaine. Officer D'Ambrosia left the bar and returned at approximately 10:45 p.m. D'Ambrosia and Jeff talked about setting up a deal for an ounce. On June 5, 1984, at about 8:10 p.m., D'Ambrosia telephoned Jeff at the Riviera Resort Motel to reschedule the drug deal to January 8, 1984 at 11:00 p.m. On June 8, 1984, at approximately 8:45 p.m., Officer D'Ambrosia arrested Tommy Brownyard outside the Rodeo Lounge. A search of Brownyard's person produced a quantity of cocaine. Between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m., Officer D'Ambrosia, Jenkins, Oliva, Wheeler, and Sergeant Roberts entered the Riviera Resort Motel and proceeded to the bar area. D'Ambrosia talked briefly with Jeff. D'Ambrosia pulled $1500 from his wallet and showed the money to Jeff. Jeff told D'Ambrosia that it would take him approximately 10 minutes to get the cocaine and he (Jeff) left. Jeff came back to the bar area in approximately 15 minutes. Jeff was then carrying a short black leather jacket over his shoulder. Sergeant Roberts observed a large clear plastic bag with cocaine stuck inside the jacket. Officer D'Ambrosia and Sergeant Roberts placed Jeff under arrest. The weight of the cocaine was determined to be 28.18 grams. The Respondent's Defense When Bob Skirde became responsible for total management of the Riviera, he inherited a security agreement with a service operated under contract with "Chief Bill Heinklein." The service provided one guard stationed at Riviera for patrol seven nights per week from 10:00 p.m. till 6:00 p.m. This service was terminated with Chief Heinklein's company on March 15, 1984 due to a seasonal decline in the occupancy in the hotel and due to unsatisfactory performance by guards supplied by Chief Heinklein. William (Bill) Hawkins was hired by the "Chief" in January of 1984 and was terminated on March 15, 1984 because he was sleeping on duty while at the Riviera. Subsequent to terminating the relationship with Heinklein's company, Robert Skirde hired security on an as needed basis when heavy occupancy was anticipated such as the Memorial Day weekend. In this regard, Walter Patskanick was hired to provide security services during that weekend. During the weekend of May 26, 1984, William Dale Hawkins was at the facility and offered to "help out" in a conversation with Chi Che in exchange for food and drink. Bill Hawkins did not receive any monetary compensation for any services he provided. Employees Chi Che hired Tommy Brownyard as a bartender on February 19, 1984. His pay was $25 per shift. His employment application indicated that he had worked as an internal revenue service agent from January, 1976 until January, 1982. On May 12, 1984, Brownyard was fired by Chi Che for failure to observe company rules and policy. On April 1, 1984, Chi Che hired Janette Hawkins to work the patio bar. Her pay was set at $25 per shift. Her employment application, as did the application of Tommy Brownyard, indicated that she had never been convicted of a crime. Following May 12, 1984, when Brownyard was fired, Janette was transferred to the inside lounge to work as bartender. Respondent denies having any knowledge of any specific work being performed by Bill Hawkins on June 1, 1984. In this regard, the evidence revealed that Bill was not on Respondent's payroll and did not receive any pay on that date. Further, Respondent denies that Bill Hawkins was an employee at any time following his termination on March 15, 1984. Upon the retention of Robert Skirde as the general manager of the Riviera Resort Motel, he (manager Skirde) immediately started to refurbish the facility and to generally upgrade the facility to serve the tourist market and to attract international tourists. The facility increased its occupancy more than 200 percent above the occupancy level that existed while the prior operator, Lodging Unlimited, operated the hotel. Manager Skirde has completely refurbished the lobby; has renovated the plumbing; has recarpeted all of the villas; has painted selected areas of the facility to "change the theme"; has repaired the south side of the roof; has spent in excess of $12,000 in landscaping has published another brochure which is being forwarded to travel agencies and, as stated earlier herein, has retained the services of the Hallandale Police Department to rid the facility of derelicts. Manager Skirde has been in the hotel business in excess of 24 years and in Florida for more than 12 years in that business. He started his employment in the Industry with the Sheraton Hotel Chain and has worked at several large tourist hotels in the area before being retained by the Respondent. Manager Skirde is the incoming President of the HSMA, a trade association of hotels and motels. Respondent has installed an electronic device which can contact police during an emergency, as needed. While Respondent used Chief Heinklein's services to provide security at the facility, manager Skirde reviewed a log book which was maintained by the security personnel, a daily basis, immediately after he got to the facility each morning. During May, 1984, occupancy declined significantly at the hotel and, for that reason, manager Skirde cut back on security and other areas until the season picks up during mid- July, 1984. Prior to that time, there had been no evidence of any drug transactions either by employees or patrons, by management or other persons involved in the operation of the Respondent's facility. During manager Skirde's tenure, he has issued several memos concerning problems with security and other means of maintaining security at the facility. At his arrival at the facility each morning, he usually "walked the property off and has instructed all employees that they can contact him on a 24- hour basis if needed." Manager Skirde has a policy of prohibiting employees from being on the property after their normal work hours have ended. Additionally, manager Skirde has instructed employees to contact him at any hint of drug activity. Manager Skirde has never overheard any conversation regarding drug use on the premises of the Riviera motel. Manager Skirde has not seen any memo published by the Petitioner as to a drug educational program for licensees. Elvis Reyes, a resident of New York City, New York, is employed by DBG properties, the owner of the Respondent's facility as an internal security officer. As part of his duties as an internal security officer, Reyes visits various properties owned by DBG properties unannounced and, in that connection, visited the Riviera Motel on May 2, 1984. Part of his instructions were not to divulge his affiliation with the parent company. During Reyes' visit to the Riviera Resort Hotel on May 2, 1984, he was there for the specific purpose of trying to find drugs on the property, either through the use by patrons or the sale of drugs in the bar areas. When Reyes went to the facility, he visited the lounge on May 2 and while in the bar lounge, there were 3 people present, 2 of whom were bartenders and 1 patron. Reyes asked the bartenders and the 1 patron if they knew where he could get some "toot" or some "blow." On each occasion, Reyes got a negative response. Reyes returned to the lounge on May 3 and again tried to buy some drugs from both the on-duty bartenders and the patrons without any success. Mr. Reyes filed a report with his superior, a Mr. Fruitbind of DBG properties in New York City, and related to him that there was no evidence of drugs being used on the premises by either patrons or employees. (Respondent's Exhibit 5.) Dr. Robert Baer is the holder of a doctorate degree in Public Affairs and Administration and is employed at Nova University in Ft. Lauderdale. Dr. Baer has extensive educational training and experience in drug detection training and experience in the installation of security measures at hotel facilities. Dr. Baer served as a police officer with the Metro-Dade County Police Bureau from 1971 through 1977. He has served as an Officer in the Narcotics Unit and in the Organized Crime Bureau. Dr. Baer was received as an expert in these proceedings in surveillance, drugs and narcotics usage in hotels. Based on Dr. Haer's interview of Respondent's management team and the security service in force at the facility, he concludes that the security at Respondent's facility is at least average or better than average. His opinion was based on his study of the area which is a low crime area, the fact that police officers frequent the area in the lounge and they regularly are seen patroling the area. Based on the following reasons, Dr. Baer felt that security at the Respondent's facility was more than adequate: The security personnel are told not to go into the bar area; The Security Director goes into the bar on a daily basis; Brownyard was fired for dereliction of duties; There was a penetration study conducted by Internal Security Officer Hayes, and Management was unaware of any problems relative to drug usage by either employees or patrons.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, within the meaning of and in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2005), by requiring Petitioners to submit a second application for the approval of a condominium purchase.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner, Allan Kangas, has no handicap and is not a disabled person. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case-in-chief, Mr. Kangas testified that he has no handicap. The undersigned, sua sponte, entered an ore tenus order on the record dismissing the case brought by Mr. Kangas. Petitioner, Anna Kangas, is an elderly female and the mother of Mr. Allan Kangas and Mr. Sheldon Kangas, the latter being the representative in this proceeding for the named Petitioners. It is undisputed that Mr. Sheldon Kangas is not handicapped, but that Mrs. Kangas is handicapped, within the meaning of Section 760.22(7), Florida Statutes (2005), because of Alzheimer's disease. Respondent is a condominium association lawfully incorporated as a Florida corporation (Association). Respondent must operate in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Declaration of Condominium (condominium documents). The condominium documents require the Association to approve each purchase of a condominium. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Sheldon Kangas and Mrs. Anna Kangas contracted with Ms. Mary Cox to purchase condominium unit 15, located at 23 Hatchett Creek Road. Ms. Cox is a real estate agent and a co-owner of unit 15. Ms. Cox notified Ms. Pat Williamson, Association Secretary, of the prospective purchase. For the reasons stated herein, Respondent did not discriminate against the prospective purchasers, but approved the purchase of condominium unit 18 in a timely manner after the purchasers changed their purchase contract from unit 15 to unit 18. The prospective purchasers completed an application for approval of the purchase of unit 15 sometime between December 8 and 10, 2005. The Association conducted a meeting to approve the proposed purchase on December 10, 2005. During the meeting on December 10, 2005, the purchasers informed the Association that they wished to purchase unit 18, located at 29 Hatchett Creek Road, rather than unit 15. Unit 18 was owned by Mr. Brian Isaac. Ms. Cox did not object to releasing the purchasers from the contract for the purchase of unit 15. The Association informed the purchasers that a new application for unit 18 would be required. The purchasers completed a new application under protest. At a meeting conducted on January 3, 2006, the Association approved the application for the purchase of unit 18. The purchase of unit 18 closed on January 25, 2006. The purchasers seek reimbursement of living expenses incurred for hotel rooms and meals during the delay caused by the requirement for a second application. The purchasers are not entitled to reimbursement. The purchase of unit 18 was the first time the Association had required a second application. However, it was also the first time a purchaser had changed his or her choice of units after submitting an application. The Association did not discriminate against Mrs. Kangas because of her handicap. The record evidence contains no justifiable issue of law or fact to support the alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David G. Muller, Esquire Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. 630 South Orange Avenue, Third Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Shelden Kangas Allan Kangas 4578 Manor Drive Sarasota, Florida 34233
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a real estate broker should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165, chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Petitioner seeks to obtain a real estate broker license to practice real estate in Florida. Petitioner is a resident of the State of Utah and has held an active real estate broker license in Utah for at least 24 months during the preceding five years from the date of his application. In 2003, Petitioner was first licensed in Utah as a real estate sales agent. On February 12, 2007, Petitioner was issued a real estate broker license, and his limited-liability company, Ultimate Homes of Utah, LLC, was licensed as a real estate company in Utah. On July 28, 2016, Petitioner submitted an on-line application for a Florida real estate broker license. The application included a section which requested background information. Question No. 1, one of the four questions on the application, requested information about Petitioner’s criminal history. Specifically, Question No. 1 requested in pertinent part the following: “Have you ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction, or are you currently under criminal investigation?” The application also directed applicants, who responded “yes” to Question No. 1, to provide details regarding any criminal offense, including description of the offense, offense type, penalty or disposition, and whether sanctions have been satisfied for each offense. In his application, Petitioner answered Question No. 1 affirmatively. He disclosed that he plead guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, on July 5, 1995. The criminal offense occurred in Utah. Further details of the criminal offense will be discussed below. Petitioner appeared, pro se, at the December 14, 2016, Commission meeting where his application was considered. On January 12, 2017, Respondent entered a NOID, which stated a number of grounds for the intent to deny Petitioner’s application. Respondent’s NOID recited key findings of fact 1 and 4, and key conclusions of law D, G, and M, as grounds for its proposed denial of Petitioner’s application. Those key findings and conclusions, as set forth on the Key for License Denials, attached to Respondent’s NOID, are as follows: Crimes in Application. Applicant’s criminal record is as revealed in application. * * * 4. Unpersuasive Testimony. Applicant’s testimony or evidence in explanation/mitigation was unpersuasive. * * * D. Having been denied licensure or having a license to practice any regulated business, profession or vocation, for conduct which would constitute a violation of this Chapter. 475.1791)[sic], 475.181 F.S. * * * G. Convicted or found guilty or entered a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime which directly relates to activities of a licensed broker or sales associate or involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing. 475.25(1)(f), 475.181 F.S. * * * M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S. Regarding the circumstances of Petitioner’s criminal offense, on December 13, 1994, an Information was filed by the County Attorney for Circuit Court of Davis County, State of Utah, which charged Petitioner with three counts as follows: Count One: rape of a child, a first degree felony: On or about July 30, 1993, Petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with a child under 14 years of age. Count Two: Sodomy Upon a Child, a first degree felony: On or about July 30, 1993, Petitioner engaged in a sexual act involving the genitals of the actor and the child under the age of 14 and the mouth or anus of either person. Count Three: Rape of a Child, a first degree felony: On or about August 13, 1993, Petitioner had sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 14. The victim involved in the criminal offense was a 13-year-old female, while Petitioner was 21 years old. Petitioner ultimately pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. On July 5, 1995, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of three years to life, fined $2,000, and ordered to pay restitution for costs of the victim’s counseling. The court also recommended that Petitioner participate in a specialized sex offender treatment program. Petitioner served four years’ imprisonment, followed by five years of parole. Petitioner was released from prison in 1999. Following Petitioner’s release from prison, he was required to register as a sex offender and remained on the registry until October 10, 2015. At hearing, Petitioner expressed remorse for his actions, and acknowledged that the facts of the offense were accurately described in the filed Information. According to Petitioner, the events giving rise to the criminal offense began with his childhood. Petitioner described his childhood as one where he did not have a close relationship with his parents and did not receive affection from them. That lack of affection affected him to the extent that he was “love-starved.” Petitioner explained that “when he was 21 years old, a 13-year- old girl expressed interest in him and he made the mistake of pursing her as a love interest.” After his release from prison, Petitioner worked in the food service industry until he lost his job in 2002. Thereafter, he pursued a career working in real estate. During the time Petitioner has held a real estate license in Utah, he has earned various certifications related to real estate including, e-Pro Certification (2004), Distressed Property Expert (2011-2012), Short Sales and Foreclosure Resource Certification, and Residential Specialist Certification. Petitioner was given the opportunity to submit letters of recommendation to show evidence of his reputation, honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and good character. Petitioner offered several letters from past customers and business partners to attest to his work ethic, responsibility, and trustworthiness in real estate dealings. Those letters are of limited value as it relates to moral turpitude and rehabilitation because the authors of the letters had no knowledge of Petitioner’s criminal history. Petitioner’s testimony regarding his otherwise blemish-free criminal history since the incident, employment history, and achievements since the criminal offense is found to be credible. Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony at the final hearing that what he did in 1993 was wrong. He has not attempted to hide the incident from Respondent as he disclosed the details of the incident on his application. It is undisputed that he completed a sex offender treatment program, completed his probation, and was released from the requirement to register on the Utah sex offender registry in 2015. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Petitioner has been involved in any criminal activity since the criminal offense in 1993, nearly 25 years ago. In his testimony, Petitioner also highlighted his qualifications as a broker, which were corroborated by the letters of support from Petitioner’s former clients that were offered at the hearing. Petitioner is a father of three children, has been married for more than 20 years, has been a licensed real estate broker in the state of Utah for 14 years, and has not exhibited a pattern or practice of violations before or after the incident in 1993. Rather, the incident in 1993 stands alone as the only blemish on Petitioner’s record. No evidence was presented at hearing of any prior discipline against Respondent’s license in any jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Real Estate issue a final order approving Victor Rothaar’s application for licensure as a real estate broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 2017.
Findings Of Fact On June 23, 1972, respondent obtained from petitioner a four COP Special license, No. 27603-S, after Thomas E. Pelt, respondent's president, executed a form affidavit reciting that the "Sand Shaker Lounge is a hotel, motel or motor court containing 100 or more transit [sic] guest units;" and after R. E. Daniels, one of petitioner's agents, certified that he had investigated and found Mr. Pelt's statement to be true. At all pertinent times, there were and have been 104 units in the "Mai Kai," the establishment housing the premises respondent operates at: Pensacola Beach, Florida. Some 28 of these units are apartments with one or two bedrooms and full kitchens. The units surrounding the swimming pool area are "efficiency type" motel rooms. Each of the remaining units consists of one large room. All 104 units were available, if unoccupied, to house overnight or transient guests, at all pertinent times; and units of all kinds were so used at least as recently as last year. At all pertinent times, however, the Mai Kai has leased mere than four of these units for periods as long as one year under renewable written agreements requiring monthly rental payments. On March 11, 1976, some 19 one year leases were in force between the Mai Kai and its customers. These agreements require the Mai Kai to furnish water but provide that "[a]ll other utilities services are to be arranged for and paid for by Lessee." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. At approximately one o'clock on the afternoon of March 11, 1976, petitioner's employee Larry Stevens inquired of employees of Gulf Power Company as to whose names were on their accounts for 32 of the Mai Kai's units. Mr. Stevens was told that all but six of the accounts about which he inquired were listed in names other than that of the management of the Mai Kai. On or about March 11, 1976, respondent's invoices for malt beverages and wines dated on or after March 1, 1976, were on the licensed premises. Invoices with earlier dates were in respondent's accountant's office, however. Ever since respondent's employees ware advised that they should do so, respondent has maintained all of its invoices for malt beverages and wines on the licensed premises, not just those for the current month, as had been its prior practice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for thirty (30) days and thereafter until and unless respondent contracts to pay for all utilities furnished to its guest rooms. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley, Esquire Legal Section 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Leo A. Thomas, Esquire Sevill Tower 226 South Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
Findings Of Fact Based upon the pleadings and responses thereto, an Order imposing sanctions for Respondent's failure to submit discovery as required by the undersigned dated October 15, 1986 and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is the developer of a condominium known as La Residence. As Presently developed, La Residence consists of sixty units. La Residence is located in Boca Raton, Florida. Respondent failed to meet the completion date for the subsequent phases of La Residence as is described in the declaration of condominium of La Residence. According to the Declaration of Condominiums for La Residence, the scheduled dates listed for construction of the subsequent phases of La Residence were June, 1982 for phase II; February, 1983 for phase III, and November, 1983 for phase IV. Amendments to the Declaration of Condominium of La Residence were recorded on June 30, 1981, March 22, 1982 and August 2, 1984. Respondent did not furnish the Division with copies of the above-referred amendments. Additionally, Respondent failed to provide purchasers of units within La Residence, copies of the above-referred amendments. Respondent failed to hold annual members meeting for the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to call a members meeting to allow non-developer unit owners to elect a director after fifteen percent of the available units had been conveyed. Respondent failed to mail to unit owners, copies of the proposed annual budget for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984. Respondent failed to include the statutory reserves and the proposed annual budget as required for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to fund reserve accounts for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to provide unit owners with financial reports for fiscal years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondent failed to pay the developer's share of assessments due to be paid by the developer after June 30, 1982. The Declaration of Condominium for La Residence was recorded in the public records of Palm Beach County in 1981. Control of the Condominium Association was turned over to non-developer unit owners on February 16, 1985. No "turnover report" was prepared by a certified public accountant nor was such a report ever furnished to the Condominium Association by Respondent. Respondent has not provided the Condominium Association copies of all canceled checks and bank statements for the time period dating from the recordation in 1981 to January 31 1984. Respondent, or a representative on its behalf, did not appear at the hearing to refute or otherwise contest the alleged violations set forth in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions, of a Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED Respondent pay to the Division, within thirty (30) days of issuance of the Division's Final Order, a civil penalty in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Respondent secure the services of an independent certified public accountant who shall review the condominium records and submit a turnover review in accordance with the provisions of Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985) and rule 7B-23.03(4)(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Within thirty days of the Division's Final Order, it is recommended that the Division issue guidelines to Respondent to ensure that the condominium records are reviewed in accordance with the above-referenced statutory and rule provisions. Provided that monies are found to be due and owing the association based on the review, Respondent shall be directed to remit such amounts to La Residence of Boca Del Mar Condominium Association. Recommended this 23rd day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 23rd day of March, 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in connection with Petitioner’s employment by Respondent on the basis of his national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Leneve Plaisime (“Plaisime”), whose country of origin is Haiti, was employed as a busboy and room service attendant at the Marriott Key Largo Bay Resort (“Marriott”)1 from 1995 to 1997. On September 13, 1997, upon returning to work after a vacation of several weeks, Plaisime was fired by a manager named Eric Sykas who said to him: “There is no job for you because the owner says he’s not interested in Haitians.”2 This statement was overheard by a co-worker of Plaisime’s named Fito Jean, who testified at the final hearing, corroborating Plaisime’s account.3 In around the middle of October 1997 (approximately one month after his discharge), Plaisime found a new job at Tak Security Corporation (“Tak”). Evidence introduced by Plaisime shows that he earned $7,862.52 at Marriott in 1997, which reflects an average monthly wage of about $925. Had he worked the entire year at Marriott, Plaisime would have earned a total of approximately $11,100. In contrast, working for Tak in 1998 Plaisime earned $11,396 (or approximately $950 per month)——a 2.7% increase in his annual income. There is no evidence showing what Plaisime’s likely income would have been in 1998 had he remained in the employ of Marriott. Ultimate Factual Determinations Marriott discharged Plaisime because of his national origin. Thus, Marriott committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The actual economic loss that Plaisime suffered as a result of Marriott’s unlawful discrimination against him was one month’s pay, or $925.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order declaring that Marriott discharged Plaisime on the basis of his national origin, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes; prohibiting Marriott from committing further such violations; and awarding Plaisime $925 to relieve the effects of the unlawful discrimination that Marriott perpetrated against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003.
The Issue Whether or not the, Respondent, Buenaventura Lakes Country Club, Inc., may be issued Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2, for use at 301 Buenaventura Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner and Respondent stipulated and agreed to the underlying facts which they deemed to have necessary application in considering the question of the propriety of the Respondent issuing the Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2 to the Petitioner for use at 301 Buenaventura Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida. Notwithstanding the lack of dispute in facts surrounding this issue, the Respondent and Petitioner have requested the undersigned to examine those facts and to offer conclusions of law on the dispute. In the course of the presentation, it was agreed that Mr. Norman J. Smith, attorney for the Petitioner, would be allowed to set forth the factual stipulation for the record. Mr. Smith indicated that the official description of the license was, Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2. It was stated that the Petitioner is now a qualified motel and restaurant as set forth in Florida Statute, 561.20, which describes those establishments which would qualify for a "special" beverage license. It was further indicated that when the license in question was issued originally it was not issued to such a qualified hotel, motel or restaurant as set forth in Florida Statute, 561.20, which established the requirements for issuance of a "special" beverage license, and that when the subject license was transferred to the present location, that the motel and restaurant, at the present location, was not such a qualified hotel, motel or restaurant in accordance with Florida Statute, 561.20, which established those requirements for issuance of a "special" beverage license. However, as of October 21, 1975, and as of the application date for license transfer, filed by the Petitioner, by improvements and physical changes to the edifice, (location where the license currently is housed), would meet the definitional requirements of Florida Statute, 561.20, which sets forth the qualifications for "special" beverage licenses to be issued to a hotel, motel or restaurant. This qualification referred to as of October 21, 1975, and as of the date of application, applies to the section on hotels/motels and restaurants. That is to say the establishment would qualify under the standards for a hotel/motel or under the standards for a restaurant. It was further established that the application which was filed by the Petitioner was duly filed with the Division of Beverage upon form, DBR-704L, which is the application for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license in this type request. Mr. Smith stated that the Petitioner understood that the letter of August 21, 1975, from the Director of the Division of Beverage, addressed to the Petitioner, stated the only basis for denying the application which had been filed by the Petitioner, and Mr. Hatch, attorney for the Respondent, agreed that there were no other grounds for disapproving the license application other than the one established in the letter from Mr. C. A. Nuzum, Director of the Division of Beverage. It was more specifically developed that the language which was relied upon to deny the application was that language set forth in Florida Statute, 561.20(2)(a)(3), "... However, any license heretofore issued to any such hotel, motel, motor court, or restaurant or hereafter issued to any such hotel, motel, or motor court [including a condominium accommodation] under the general law shall not be moved to a new location, such license being valid only on the premises of such hotel, motel, motor court, or restaurant." Mr. Hatch, in behalf of the Respondent, agreed to the accuracy of the depiction of the stipulation as stated for the record by Mr. Smith. The parties through their respective attorneys then offered oral argument on the law as it relates to the Petitioner's request for issuance of a license at the aforementioned location. Additionally, Mr. Bishop, a licensing supervisor with the Division of Beverage, was called to testify concerning his interpretation of the operation of Florida Statute, 561 as it pertains to license applications, moves, and transfers. One further item was offered in the way of a stipulation, and that is an agreement on the part of Mr. Smith, for the Petitioner, to allow examination of two memoranda offered by the Respondent as part of its argument. Mr. Smith indicated that he had a copy of the memoranda and that he had no objection to the use of that memoranda in the way of argument in behalf of the Respondent. Upon that representation the undersigned was provided with a copy of the Respondent's memoranda and has considered the same in addressing the legal issue.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application for transfer as filed by the Respondent, Buenaventura Lakes Country Club, Inc., to transfer Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2 from its present location to 301 Buenaventura Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida, be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Norman J. Smith, Esquire Brinson and Smith, P. A. Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue In relation to DOAH Case No. 05-0515, does the case involve the sale of securities as described in Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (2002), that would confer jurisdiction upon OFR to proceed to a hearing on the merits of the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 05-0515, and to what extent, if any, the named Respondents have been involved with the sale of securities sufficient to declare jurisdiction over their activities? Preliminary to that determination is the related issue concerning the possible pre-emption of OFR's regulatory authority by virtue of the regulatory action previously taken by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (DBPR) under authority set forth in Chapter 721, Florida Statutes (2002)? Argument has also been set forth concerning the significance of court cases as they might influence OFR's ability to declare their regulatory authority in this instance.
Findings Of Fact * * * 2. RESPONDENT is the 'creating developer' of the Universal Luxury Lease Plan, a personal property 'timeshare plan' as those terms are defined in sections 721.05(9)(a) and 721.05(37), Florida Statutes, located in the city of Sanford, Florida. * * * On or about July 10, 2003, DIVISION was made aware of a newspaper advertisement for Universal Luxury Lease Plan. This advertisement, promoted the purchase of a timeshare interest in the Universal Luxury Lease Plan as an investment that offered purchasers a 10 percent per year return on their investment. On July 25, 2003, DIVISION'S investigators were given an application package containing the Universal Luxury Lease Plan Enrollment Forms, CD-ROM, Public Offering Statement, Contracts and Motor Coach Brochures. The application package stated that it was advertising material being used for the purposes of soliciting timeshare interests. It described a component of the timeshare plan called the 'Affinity Rental Program' and stated that the program will typically produce a monthly income of 10 percent of the lease-hold ownership interest.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That an order be entered by OFR finding jurisdiction to proceed with the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05- 0515 on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2006.
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
