The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a transfer of the quota license they attempted to apply for in their initial application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license for a restaurant based upon their second application. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an alcoholic beverage license based upon their third application in spite of the county's refusal to approve the zoning of the proposed location until a pending declaratory judgment before the circuit court is resolved. Whether the Respondent is estopped to deny any of the applications because of the representations made by a field agent for the agency that to his knowledge, there were no problems at the proposed location.
Findings Of Fact The joint stipulation of facts entered into by the parties on December 21, 1988, are adopted as the findings of fact in this proceeding. A copy of the stipulation is attached and made part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
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
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondents' beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting their licensed premises to be used for the purpose of prostitution and for gaining profit from that prostitution. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses, Beverly Fraley, Alfred Stone, and Raphael Grulau. The Respondents presented no evidence. The Petitioner offered and had admitted over the objection of the Respondent, one tape recording of conversations which occurred inside the licensed premises as a part of the undercover investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as being unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Katherine J. and Guy H. Sutton were the holders of a valid, current beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. This license was issued to a licensed premises called Guy's Tavern located on Highway 301, South, in Riverview, Florida. On May 12, 1983, Detective Beverly Fraley of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity. On this particular evening, Detective Fraley was accompanied by two other detectives of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in a backup capacity. Prior to entering the licensed premises, Detective Fraley was fitted with a body bug for the purpose of recording any conversations that she might have in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation. When Officer Fraley arrived, the two backup detectives were inside the licensed premises shooting pool. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Fraley went to the bar and ordered a drink. After obtaining her drink, she was approached by a white male, who called himself "Stogie." While talking with Stogie, another white male, who called himself "Turkey" approached Officer Fraley from behind and placed his arms around her. She had never met Turkey before. Officer Fraley pushed Turkey away and said "Keep your hands off the merchandise." Shortly after her encounter with Turkey, Officer Fraley began shooting pool with Stogie and the two undercover detectives. After a short time, she left the licensed premises with Detective Grulau and after a few minutes the two of them reentered the licensed premises. After reentering, Officer Fraley went to the ladies' rest room and when she came out, she was called over to the bar area by the owner, Guy Sutton, who was behind the bar. As Officer Fraley approached the bar, Mr. Sutton stated, "If you're going to fuck here you've got to pay me." Officer Fraley asked what he meant and he told her that she would have to pay him $5.00 for every trick" she took out of the bar. "Trick" is a slang or street term used to describe an act of prostitution. Mr. Sutton then identified himself as the owner and said that the other women in the bar also paid. Officer Fraley then gave Mr. Sutton a $5 bill. After paying Mr. Sutton, Officer Fraley turned to the bartender, Irene Springer, who was present during this conversation and asked if in fact the other women in the bar were required to pay. Irene Springer stated that the other women in the bar did in fact have to pay $5.00 per trick and a group of white females sitting at a table near the bar responded, "That's right honey." Later that evening, Officer Fraley left with the other undercover detective. When they returned, Guy Sutton was in the pool room area. Officer Fraley intentionally did not go over to Sutton. Shortly after she returned, Sutton came over to her and told her that she owed him another $5.00. He then told her that she would be better off paying him $25.00 per week rather than $5.00 per trick. He also stated that she had the potential to make $300 or $400 per week in his place. Guy's Tavern has a reputation in the community as a bar where prostitutes can be picked up.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondents' beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Conrad F. and Shirley Bouchard, are holders of beverage license number 39-790, series number 2APS. This license is issued to the licensed premises, Brandon Beverage Center, located at 118 Margaret Street, Brandon, Florida. The license was obtained by the Respondents by transfer on August 21, 1981. The licensed premises is a drive-through store which sells beer and wine, milk, bread, and other grocery items. Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr., is one of the owners and licensees and is also the manager of the store. His regular working hours are from 8:30 or 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. He occasionally is required to work evenings and weekends. Conrad F. Bouchard, Jr., also known as Butch, is the son of the Respondents and worked nights at the licensed premises. On April 1, 1982, the Respondent was given a written warning from Beverage Officer George Miller that there had been complaints about sales of alcoholic beverages to minors at the licensed premises. On October 27, 1982, an employee of Respondent, named Scott Steinberg, was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. As a result of this, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages by Notice to Show Cause brought formal administrative charges against the Respondents. The charges against the Respondents resulted in a stipulation and settlement with the Respondents agreeing to pay a $300 fine. On July 22, 1983, Scott Steinberg was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to minors and formal administrative charges were brought against the Respondents as a result of the alleged sales to minors. These charges are still pending. On the evening of October 11, 1983, at approximately 9:00 P.M., Detectives Michael Ray and Mark Olive of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises to investigate complaints relating to the sale of drugs on the licensed premises. They were accompanied by a confidential informant. Upon arriving at the licensed premises, Butch Bouchard approached the vehicle and the confidential informant asked if he had any marijuana they could purchase. Butch Bouchard responded that he did. Scott Steinberg, another employee working at the licensed premises, approached the vehicle and took $26 from Detective Ray as payment for the marijuana. Butch Bouchard then returned to the vehicle holding a cigarette carton with the top torn off. He handed the carton to the confidential informant who in turn handed it to Detective Ray. The carton contained a baggie containing approximately five grams of marijuana (cannabis), a controlled substance under Florida Statute 893.13 (1981). On October 13, 1983, at approximately 9:10 P.M., Detectives Ray and Olive returned to the licensed premises. As they stopped their vehicle inside the drive-through store, Butch Bouchard approached Detective Ray. Ray asked Butch Bouchard if they could purchase some marijuana. Bouchard looked in the backseat of the vehicle and saw the confidential informant and then walked over to the office area. Bouchard then returned with a paper bag which he handed to Detective Ray. Detective Ray handed $25, the agreed price of the marijuana, to Bouchard. The paper bag contained a clear plastic baggie filled with marijuana. On this particular evening, Butch Bouchard was the only employee on the licensed premises. In the early evening of October 17, 1983, Detective Ray, accompanied by Detective Tony Roper, drove into the licensed premises. Butch Bouchard approached the vehicle and Detective Ray asked if he could purchase some marijuana. Butch Bouchard then asked Detective Ray to get out of his vehicle and select which bag he wanted. Butch Bouchard had several bags in his hand and asked Detective Ray to look at them. Detective Ray selected one bag and purchased it from Butch Bouchard. The bag contained marijuana. On October 20, 1983, at approximately 9:00 P.M. Detectives Ray and Roper returned to the licensed premises. Officer Ray purchased a plastic baggie of marijuana from Butch Bouchard for $25. On November 10, 1983, Detective Roper and Detective Mathai, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises and asked to buy a bag of marijuana from Butch Bouchard. Butch said he did not have any and asked them to come back later. When the detectives returned the Beverage Center was closed and Butch Bouchard was in the parking lot. Butch came over to the Detectives' car and sold them a plastic baggie of marijuana. On November 17, 1983, Detectives Geoffry Dean Mathai and John Zdanwic of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises. On a prior occasion, Detective Mathai had gone with Detective Tony Roper to the licensed premises and had talked with Butch Bouchard about marijuana. On this evening, Detective Mathai asked Butch Bouchard if he remembered Tony and after a short conversation Mathai asked Butch if he could buy some marijuana. Butch said yes and asked how many bags. Detective Mathai told him they wanted two bags. Butch left the car, went into the office and returned a couple of minutes later with a Benson & Hedges cigarette carton. He handed the carton to Detective Mathai and Detective Mathai and Detective Zdanwic each handed him cash. The two detectives also had ordered a beer each and received the beer and change from Butch Bouchard. The cigarette carton contained two plastic baggies of marijuana. Detectives Mark Olive and Swann also made a purchase of marijuana at the licensed premises on the evening of November 17, 1983. The two detectives drove into the licensed premises and asked Butch Bouchard if they could purchase a $25 bag of marijuana and asked if he had that much. Butch responded yes and walked to the office area and then came back with a cigarette carton which he handed to Detective Olive. The carton contained a plastic baggie of marijuana. Butch Bouchard was paid $25 for the bag of marijuana. The only employees observed on the licensed premises this night were Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg. On the evening of November 22, 1983, Detective Ray and several other officers went to the licensed premises to serve a search warrant. When they arrived, Detective Ray spoke to Conrad Bouchard and asked if they could purchase some marijuana. Butch answered yes and went over to the area of the cash register and office area. Detective Ray then got out of his car and walked over to the office where he saw Butch Bouchard crouched down and looking at five bags of marijuana. Detective Ray identified himself as a police officer and Butch then grabbed the bags and ran into the bathroom and tried to flush the marijuana down the toilet. Detective Ray caught Butch before he could flush the toilet. After arresting Butch Bouchard, the officers searched Butch's car and found a pipe and two more plastic baggies of marijuana. When Butch was crouched looking at the bags of marijuana, Scott Steinberg was present in the same area. On each of the evenings that purchases of controlled substances were made at the licensed premises, no employees other than Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg were present at the licensed premises. Neither Butch Bouchard nor Scott Steinberg is a night manager. Both these individuals are merely sales clerks. The only manager for the licensed premises is Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr. Although the normal working hours for Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr., is 8:30 to 4:30 or 5:00 P.M., he occasionally returns to the licensed premises in the evenings to check on things. Mrs. Bouchard also makes a point of stopping by the licensed premises in the evening. Occasionally, Mr. or Mrs. Bouchard would check on the licensed premises without the employees being aware they were observing. Mr. and Mrs. Bouchard had no knowledge of the drug transactions which took place on the licensed premises. Shortly after acquiring the licensed premises, Mr. Bouchard fired several of the previous employees for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. Until the arrest of Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg for drug violations, there was no evidence that any disciplinary action was taken by the licensee against these two individuals for sales to minors on two occasions. Mr. Bouchard had a clear policy against selling alcoholic beverages to minors. He constantly instructed employees to check identification. There was no evidence of instructions or warnings having been given relating to other types of illegal activity. During July and August, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Bouchard took separate vacations in order for one of them to be available to oversee the operation at the licensed premises. The licensed premises enjoys a good reputation in the community as a clean, well-run establishment. The Respondents individually enjoy an excellent reputation in the community as honest, hardworking people.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondents guilty of the violations as set forth above and imposing a civil penalty of $1400 and a suspension of the beverage license for a period of 30 days. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Danny Hernandez, Esquire 707 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
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 Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983.
The Issue Whether or not on or about February 2, 1977, James P. Pope, a licensee under the beverage laws, failed to file application for transfer of said license after a bona fide sale of said business and license was made by James P. Pope to Gary W. Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman contrary to 561.32, F. S. Whether or not on or about February 2, 1977, James P. Pope, licensed under the beverage laws, did allow persons, to wit; Gary W. Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman to assume a direct interest and engage in selling alcoholic beverages prior to filing a sworn application and being approved, contrary to 561.17, F. S. Whether or not on or about February 2, 1977, James P. Pope, licensed under the beverage laws, failed to manage and maintain control of all business conducted on his licensed premises, by allowing Gary W. Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman to take complete control of his premises contrary to Rule 7A-3.17, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James P. Pope, is the holder of license no. 27-526, series 2-COP, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Beverage. James P. Pope has held this license from October 1, 1976, up to and including the date of the formal hearing. This license allows the licensee to sell beer and wine for consumption on the licensed premises. The licensed premises is located at 4220 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida. The licensee is trading as Tavern on the Mall. On February 2, 1977, agent Daniel J. Cobb, State of Florida, Division of Beverage, went to the Respondent's licensed premises. When he arrived at the licensed premises, he spoke with one Gary W. Simmons. Simmons indicated that he was the new owner of the licensed premises although the transfer of ownership had not been completed. Simmons further indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and running the licensed premises. Simmons indicated that he and Anthony W. Speakman had a lease agreement with the licensee, James P. Pope. This lease agreement as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit no. 3, admitted into evidence and made a part of the record, establishes that James P. Pope as lessor entered into a lease agreement with Gary Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman as lessees, in which the lessees would manage the Tavern on the Mall, with the option to buy the business and equipment as soon as the beverage department approved the application for the transfer of the beer and wine license. The lease also indicated that the lessees would receive all the money from the business for managing the business, with the exception of $150 a week which was to be paid to James P. Pope and would go toward the down payment for the licensed premises which would come about at the time of the license transfer. The lease agreement additionally said that the purpose of the Tavern was for dispensing beer and wine. Agent Cobb also discovered the existence of a bank account which Simmons and Speakman had established to operate the business on the licensed premises. In addition, agent Cobb found that a local utility company, Gulf Power, was providing electric power to the licensed premises in the name of Simmons and Speakman. In an interview on February 3, 1977, between Cobb and Pope, the Petitioner's Exhibit no. 3 was presented to agent Cobb to establish the arrangement between Pope, Simmons and Speakman. (This lease was produced voluntarily and the Respondent has cooperated with the Division of Beverage in investigating this matter.) James P. Pope was not running or managing the business at the licensed premises on February 2, 1977, nor has he been managing the business from February 2, up to and including the date of the hearing. Pope only comes to the licensed premises two or three times a week just for purposes of checking up, but not for purposes of management. The facts in this cause do not establish that on or about February 2, 1977, James P. Pope, a licensee under the beverage laws, faced to file an application for a transfer of his license after a bona fide sale of the business located 4220 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, under s. 561.32, F. S. The agreement between James P. Pope and Gary W. Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman is a lease agreement with an option to buy and this is not a bona fide sale of the premises. The facts in this cause do establish that James P. Pope did allow Gary W. Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman to assume a direct interest in the licensed premises and engage in selling alcoholic beverage prior to filing a sworn application and being approved by the Division of Beverage, contrary to s. 561.17, F. S. This is established by the conditions existant on February 2, 1977, in the licensed premises. Finally, the facts as established, show that on February 2, 1977, James P. Pope, licensed under the beverage laws, was not managing and controling all the business conducted on the licensed premises under the beverage law, nor was his authorized employee or employees managing or controlling such business conducted on the licensed premises under the beverage law. Therefore James P. Pope was operating contrary to Rule 7A-3.17, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the facts as shown, and the violations as established, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Director of the Division of Beverage grant the Respondent, James P. Pope, 30 days from the date of the final order, within which time to effect a legal transfer of his beverage license, license no. 27-526, series 2-COP, to Gary W. Simmons and Anthony W. Speakman or some satisfactory party, after which time if no legal transfer has been achieved, the license held by James P. Pope, license no. 27-526, series 2-COP shall be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1977, 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 T. Collett, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James P. Pope 4220 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2010.
