The Issue The question presented in this cause concerns the necessity that the Petitioner pay an additional $1,000 fee which is purportedly required by the conditions of Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes, if it is determined that the Petitioner has more than three permanent separate locations serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on its licensed premises, Store No. 126. This alleged fee requirement is associated with the Petitioner's application to the Respondent for an "increase in series" of its alcoholic beverage license from a Series 3-PS, which permits "package sales" for off-premises consumption only, to a Series 4-COP, which permits consumption of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. The Petitioner claims that the arrangement in the licensed premises does not exceed the limit of three permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages and the Respondent claims that there are four permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises, thereby exceeding by one the allowable limit and causing the imposition of the $1,000 additional license tax set forth in Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On March 24, 1977, the Petitioner, ABC Liquors, Inc., made an application with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for an "increase in series" of its alcoholic beverage license for Store No. 126, located at 3427 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The increase requested was a change from a Series 3-PS license, which permitted "package sales" for off-premises consumption only, to a new Series 4-COP license, which permits consumption of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. For reference purposes, a copy of the front sheet of the application is attached to this Recommended Order and incorporated by reference as Attachment "A". In compliance with the procedures of the Respondent, T. L. Ewing, the Respondent's employee, drew a sketch of the premises on the reverse side of the application referred to in Attachment "A", and a copy of that sketch is attached to this Recommended Order and incorporated by reference as Attachment "B". That sketch is an accurate representation of the interior floor plan of the licensed premises. The floor plan is further depicted in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5, specifically 5E, which is a sketch of the "as-built" plans of the portion of the licensed premises which is the subject of this dispute. This Exhibit 5E, which was admitted into evidence, depicts the deployment of the bar area which is utilized under the terms of a Series 4-COP license applied for. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is a photographic depiction of the type bar arrangements and accessways between certain portions of the bar arrangement; however, this photograph is taken of a similar lounge area and is not the actual area in question. This depicts another one of the Petitioner's lounges, located in a separate licensed premises. As described in the issue statement of this Recommended Order, the controversy presented for consideration involves a characterization of the bar areas shown in Attachment "B" and Petitioner's Exhibit 5E on the question of whether there are more than three permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises. The significance of having more than three permanent separate locations for serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises is revealed by a reading of Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which states: 565.02 License fees; vendors; clubs; caterers and others.-- (g) Vendors operating places of business where consumption on the premises is permitted and which have ,more than three permanent separate locations serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises shall pay in addition to the license tax imposed in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), $1,000. However, such permanent separate locations shall not include service bars not accessible to the public or portable or temporary bars being used for a single occasion or event. Golf club license holders may operate service bars or portable or temporary bars on the grounds contiguous to their licensed premises and shall pay $100 for a certified copy of the club license, which shall be posted on the bar. The area contiguous to the licensed premises shall be considered an extension of the licensed premises upon payment of the fee, posting of the certified copy of the license, and notation of such extension upon the sketch accompanying the original license application. In reviewing the license application for "increase in series", the Respondent has taken the position that there are within the room which constitutes the lounge area, four separate locations and those four locations are made up of the rotating bar, and the perimeter bar areas which show three sections broken up by the east and west ramps separating those portions of the perimeter bar area. It is the contention of the Respondent that the word "location" is equivalent to the bar areas shown in the lounge room and, counting the rotating bar and the three separate perimeter sections, there would be four locations. Consequently, under the Respondent's theory, the Petitioner is required to pay an additional license tax in the amount of $1,000 for the extra location in excess of the allowable three locations. The Petitioner asserts that the meaning of the word "location" as found in the subsection calls for more definitive separation than is found between the sections of the perimeter bar operation and that the design of the perimeter bar which allows for entrance and exit ramps through the center of the horseshoe shaped device which is the perimeter bar area, does not create the type definition contemplated by the law. To the Petitioner, separate rooms would be more in keeping with the legislative intent in drafting the requirement in Subsection 565.02(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Moreover, the Petitioner argues that the rampways which divide the perimeter bar into three sections were installed primarily for the purposes of safety and convenience and those efforts to allow for safety and convenience should not be used to unfair advantage by the Respondent in claiming that there are four locations as opposed to a maximum of two locations; those two locations being constituted of the rotating bar and a perimeter bar. The Petitioner claims that certain local ordinances require that exits be available within a specified number of feet of the position a patron might be found in during the course of an emergency and the Petitioner alludes to the fact that the rampways aid in the evacuation through the exits. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the removal of the passageways would cause a violation of the ordinances dealing with emergency exit accessibility. Petitioner also states, and the facts reveal, that within the room proper there are six serving stations in the perimeter bar area, constituted of case registers, soda heads, sinks and other necessary structures to the service of patrons. These soda heads, waterlines, and drainage systems have common origins or terminus. Other relevant facts presented in the case include the facts that the bar structure in terms of the shell of the various positions within the lounge area, are permanent installations, although the soda heads for mixed drinks may be moved around within the shell. There are swinging doors on the northern and southern fingers of the various sections of the perimeter bar area. The rampway is unobstructed unless one of those swinging doors is opened when a person is attempting to use the rampways. The dimensions and measurements within the lounge may be discerned by an examination of the other aspects of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5, with the caveat that these design sheets must be considered in view of the "as-built" sketch found in Petitioner's Exhibit 5E. This statement is made because there were design changes made from the original proposal which relocated the dance floor in the lounge area and made other changes which may be seen in this review.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, ABC Liquors, Inc., be required to pay an additional license tax of $1,000 in all applicable periods for its place of business located at 3427 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James E. Foster, Esq. 170 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether or not 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 October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did sell an alcoholic beverage, to-wit: beer, in a place located at 4465 49th Street North, St Petersburg, Florida, a premises not covered by its beverage license as described in the application therefor, contrary to Section 562.06, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did conspire with James Tarpey to carry out an act, to- wit: sale of alcoholic beverages without a license, which would be or is in violation of the provisions of the Beverage Law, contrary to Section 562.23, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At the time the current Notice to Show Caused Administrative Complaint was brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, the Respondent, The Casino, Inc. , was the holder of a Series 2-COP license, No. 62-545, to trade as Satan's Den at the location 4495 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. Although the license most recently issued to the Respondent expired on September 30, 1978, the matter was in litigation at the time of the expiration and the license remaining in effect pending the outcome of this hearing. 1/ The facts in dispute reveal that on October 7, 1977, Severage Officer William R. Wiggs went to a business location at 4465 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, being operated by the Respondent. Then Wiggs arrived at the door, he was charged $3.00 to enter that building and was told that while he was in the building any alcoholic beverage he consumed would be free. He entered the building and was served an alcoholic beverage on four occasions by an employee or employees of the Respondent. The proximity of the building at which Beverage Officer Wiggs was served alcoholic beverages on October 7, 1977, to the actual licensed premises location is shown in the Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a diagram of the licensed premises and the building in question, roughly depicting their position in reference to each other and to 49th Street. The rectangular figure marked with an X shows the location 4465 49th Street North and the rectangular figure marked with a zero depicts the licensed premises shown by the records of the Petitioner and on the face of the license. Subsequent to his visit, Officer Wiggs requested a search warrant to be issued by the County Court of Pinellas County, Florida, and that warrant was issued which allowed a search of the building at 4465 49th Street North. The warrant was executed on October 11, 1977, and those matters returned in inventory are shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the inventory. Among the items which were obtained from the building were beer, wine and whiskey. The facts in the case also show that beer had been delivered to the location at 4465 49th. Street North to the Respondent trading as Satan's Den and the deliveries were made in the beginning of October, 1977, around the time of Officer "Wiggs' initial trip to that location and the time of the execution of the search warrant. On October 13, 1977, James Tarpey, President of the Respondent corporation, called the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in the person of Norman J. Stephens and stated to Stephens that the beer which had been seized at the time of the execution of the search warrant was property which Tarpey owned.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, The Casino, Inc., License 62-545, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
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 involves the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for multiple sales of controlled substances by employees and patrons on the licensed premises. At the formal hearing, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco called as witnesses, Rodney A. Russ, William J. Spears, and James B. McPherson. The Respondents called as witnesses, Deborah Craven, Tina Meredith, Roxanne Hayes, Walter Humphries, Chris Poulos, Mark Willingham, Leonard Coffee, and Respondent, Fred C. Dillman, II. Petitioner offered no exhibits and Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted memoranda of law. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations and charges in this proceeding, the Respondents F. C. Dillman, B. J. Dillman, and F. C. Dillman, Jr., were the holders of a valid beverage license number 47-196, Series 4-COP. This license is held by Respondents as a partnership and is issued to the licensed premises known as Fred's Back Door Lounge, located at 2009 West Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, Florida. On Saturday, November 12, 1983, Beverage Officer Rodney A. Russ entered the licensed premises, Fred's Back Door Lounge, in an undercover capacity. Officer Russ had been requested by his superiors to conduct an investigation of possible drug activity at the lounge. The lounge is divided into a front area and back area by partial walls and there are bars serving drinks located in both areas. The lounge has a front entrance and a back entrance. The back entrance opens out onto a deck or porch area. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Russ, and a friend who accompanied him, ordered drinks from a bartender named Brenda. Officer Russ and his friend conversed with Brenda and during the course of the conversation, Officer Russ asked her if she knew someone she trusted that he could get two joints from. Joint is a slang or street term for a marijuana cigarette. Brenda responded that she didn't trust anyone. She then left the area where Officer Russ was seated. Officer Russ observed Brenda approach another bartender named Kathy. Kathy handed a rolled up napkin to Brenda and Brenda then walked back over to Officer Russ and handed the napkin to him. The napkin contained 0.975 grams of marijuana, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On this particular evening, the lounge was approximately 3/4 full and had about 75 patrons. The employees on duty included three bartenders, two doormen, and a gentleman in the package store. The conversation with Brenda about drugs occurred in a low town of voice and could not be overheard by other patrons. Brenda attempted to conceal the transfer of the marijuana and there was no effort on Officer Russ's part to make the transfer obvious to anyone else. Brenda was not paid any money for the marijuana. On November 16, 1983, Officer Russ again went to the licensed premises and on this occasion, he was accompanied by Beverage Officer, Gloria Smith. They entered the lounge at approximately 9:30 p.m. and sat at the bar when Brenda was working mixing drinks. They talked with Brenda, and Officer Russ asked her if she could get a couple of joints for him and Smith. Brenda said she would see what she could do. During this conversation, there were patrons standing 2 or 3 feet behind Officers Russ and Smith. There were no seats on either side of them at the bar. Later that evening, Brenda delivered two joints of marijuana to Officer Russ. The joints were again rolled up in a napkin which Officer Russ did not open. Officer Ruff offered to pay Brenda for the marijuana and she refused to accept payment. This evening, the lounge was almost full and had approximately 100 patrons. There were three bartenders and two doormen on duty in the lounge. The napkins received from Brenda contained two rolled marijuana cigarettes containing 1.5 grams of Marijuana. No other employee participated in the drug transfer and the conversation about drugs was in a soft, low tone of voice. Officer Russ next returned to the licensed premises on November 18, 1983. He went to the lounge along an arrived at approximately 6:40 p.m. There were about 50 patrons in the lounge and Officer Russ took a seat at the back bar where Brenda was working. Of the approximately 50 patrons in the lounge about half of the patrons were in the back area. While seated at the bar, Officer Russ met Larry Mallon. During the conversation, Officer Russ told Mallon that he was looking for some marijuana. Mallon told him he had some and took a clear plastic baggie out of his right coat pocket and handed it to Russ. The marijuana was handed to Officer Russ just below the padded area of the bar. The transfer could have been seen by other persons in the lounge but was not visible to someone behind the bar. The plastic baggie contained 1.1 grams of marijuana. Russ did not pay Mallon for the marijuana. While seated at the bar, Russ also purchased 1 gram of cocaine from Mellon for $75. Mellon took the packet of cocaine from his right coat pocket and handed it to Russ. Russ then placed $80 on the bar and Mallon picked it up and handed him $5 in change. The cocaine transaction took place just as Officer Russ was about to leave the licensed premises. There was an employee present behind the bar approximately three (3) feet from Russ and Mallon when the drugs were transferred but Russ could not say whether the employee was looking at them or not. On this particular evening, Russ had no discussions about drugs with employees of the licensed premises. He left the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. Officer Russ had never met Larry Mallon. Officer Russ, along with Officer Smith, was next in the licensed premises on November 30, 1983. They entered the lounge at approximately 8:40 p.m. and took the same two seats at the same area of the bar where they had sat on the previous visit. Brenda was working behind the bar and Russ asked her if she had any amphetamines or uppers. She said she believed she-did have some and would look and see. Later, Brenda gave Officer Russ 2 tablets which she said were speed, but testing revealed they were not a controlled substance. He also asked Brenda if she could get some marijuana for Officer Smith. Brenda told Officer Russ that someone in the bar was selling marijuana for $100 an ounce and would break it down to quarter ounce for $30. Kathy, another bartender was present during the conversation about drugs and Brenda informed her that Officer Russ and Officer Smith were looking for some pot (marijuana) Later that evening, Officer Smith met a patron named Butch. Butch joined Officers Russ and Smith at the bar after Smith asked him across the bar about possibly obtaining marijuana. Butch told them he could get them a quarter ounce of marijuana for $30. Be said he would have to leave for about ten minutes but would return. He left and returned a short time later and stated to Officer Russ that he had the marijuana but wanted to make the transfer outside the car. Butch, Officer Russ and Officer Smith went out to the parking lot where Butch sold them 2 grams of marijuana for $30. Officers Smith and Russ returned to the lounge Russ asked Brenda if Butch could be trusted and if his marijuana was any good. She said Butch was o.k. During this conversation, a patron named Jim Bob was present. This particular evening, the lounge was crowded and loud music was playing. There were seven employees on duty in the lounge that night. While in the lounge, Officer Russ observed Brenda with a handful of red tablets and also observed a motorcycle gang type individual smoking what smelled like marijuana on the deck outside the back entrance of the lounge. Officer Russ next visited the licensed premises on December 3, 1983. Russ went to the lounge alone and sat at the bar where Brenda and Kathy were working. He began conversing with Brenda and Kathy and asked Kathy if she knew anyone he could get a quarter of an ounce of marijuana from. Kathy said she would look around and twice during the evening came back to Officer Russ and told him she was still looking. During the evening, Officer Russ also spoke to Butch and asked him if he was holding any drugs. Butch said he was not but that he should check the back porch, that there was someone usually smoking marijuana back there. Officer Russ did not obtain any drugs in the licensed premises this particular evening. Accompanied by Officer Smith, Officer Russ again returned to the licensed premises on December 7, 1983. They arrived at approximately 7:30 p.m. When they arrived, Fred Dillman, Jr., was seated at the front bar talking to Brenda. Officer Russ walked up to the bar and spoke to Brenda, who in turn introduced him to Fred Dillman. Later, after Russ went to the back bar, Brenda came back to the bar and began working behind the bar. Brenda told Russ she wanted to talk to him about her cousins in Bristol. She said her cousins had some good reefer (marijuana) and that she was going over to Bristol for the weekend. She asked if Russ wanted some of the reefer. Brenda initiated this conversation about drugs. While Russ was talking with Brenda, Larry Mellon was standing nearby. After Russ talked with Brenda, Larry Mellon began talking with him about the coke he had given him. Russ told Mellon he wanted to buy some reefer and Smith kept saying she wanted to buy coke. Russ told Mellon he wanted to buy $60 worth of reefer. Mellon then left the lounge with another man and moments later Mellon returned and handed a bag of marijuana to Russ. Russ had given the $60 to Mellon at the bar. The transfer of the money was very open and at the time the transfer took place, Brenda was behind the bar nearby. The baggie which Russ received from Mellon contained 9.9 grams of marijuana. Russ did not talk with any employee other than Brenda about drugs on this particular evening. At no time during the evening did Russ observe Dillman come into the back area of the lounge where Brenda was working. On Friday, December 9, 1983 Officer Russ returned to the licensed premises. He arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. and went to the back area of the bar where Brenda was working. Officer Russ talked with Brenda about the marijuana she was going to get in Bristol and eventually he asked her if she had any speed. Brenda then took two capsules out of her purse and handed them to Officer Russ. When she retrieved the two capsules from her purse, she placed her purse on the bar and took out medicine vials. She looked in the vials until she found what she was looking for. She handed the two capsules across the bar to Officer Russ. Officer Russ had already received his drink and when he gave her the money, the only thing he received across the bar were the two capsules. The two capsules were phentermine, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Officer Russ gave Brenda $10 for the two capsules and she reluctantly accepted the money. When she took the money, Brenda said she would get the prescription refilled and share them with Officer Russ. On this particular evening, there were approximately 35 to 40 patrons in the lounge and 4 or 5 employees on duty. On December 14, 1983, Officers Russ and Smith went to the licensed premises. Brenda was working that evening and Officers Russ and Smith took seats at the bar where she was working. They talked with Brenda and Officer Russ asked her if she could get them something. Brenda then went over to a male patron seated at the bar across from Officers Russ and Smith and talked with him briefly. She reached into the man's right shirt pocket and took out a small amount of marijuana wrapped in a clear plastic material like Saran wrap. Brenda then walked over and handed the packet to Officer Russ. The packet contained .9 grams of marijuana. That same evening, Officer Russ talked with one of the doormen named Hank (aka Hank the Tank) . The conversation took place at the back wall next to the juke box. Russ asked Hank if he knew where he could get some cocaine. Hank said he would check for him. Later that evening, Hank came back to Russ and said that everyone was out but that they would be getting some the next day. There were approximately 75 patrons in the lounge this night and there were approximately 7 employees on duty. On December 16, 1983, Officer Russ returned to the licensed premises. He was accompanied by Barbara Brown, a Callaway police officer. They entered the lounge at approximately 8:25 p.m. and took seats at the beck bar where Brenda was working. There were approximately 50 to 70 patrons in the lounge and 6 employees on duty. While seated at the bar, Officer Russ talked with Brenda, who at one point placed her purse on the bar and searched through several medicine vials just as she had done on a prior occasion. She then handed Officer Russ a yellow capsule similar $0 the ones he had received before. Russ did not pay Brenda any money for the capsule. The capsule was phentermine, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. This evening, Officer Russ also spoke with a doorman or bouncer on duty named Kevin. He asked Kevin if he could get him some marijuana. Kevin said Tallahassee was dry and that he had not had a joint in 3 days. Kevin, at the time of the formal hearing, was no longer employed by the Respondent. On his next visit to the licensed premises, Officer Russ was accompanied by Officer Smith. This visit occurred on December 21, 1983. There were between 50 and 75 patrons in the lounge and 5 employees on duty. Officer Russ spoke with one of the barmaids on duty about Kevin. Russ also asked her if she knew where he could get a joint. She said she did not, and suggested he talk to Cindy the bartender at the front bar. Brenda was not working this particular evening end Cindy was working at the front and back bar. Cindy was working at the back bar at that time and Russ spoke with her about the availability of drugs. Cindy told Officer Russ that she had a friend who would be returning with some Hawaiian marijuana. Larry Mellon overheard the conversation and told Cindy and Russ that the guy she was referring to wasn't coming back but was going to Chi-Chi's and then-home. Russ then began talking with Larry Mellon and Jim Bob Kitchen joined them. During the conversation, Jim Bob handed a marijuana cigarette to Officer Smith who then handed it to Officer Russ. The exchange occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m. The marijuana cigarette looked like a rolled marijuana cigarette and contained .2 grams of marijuana. This same evening, Officer Russ was introduced by Butch (whom he had met previously) to a woman named Melinda. Officer Smith had earlier been introduced to Melinda by Butch and was told that Melinda had some marijuana to sell. Officer Russ discussed buying some marijuana from Melinda, and Russ, Smith, and Melinda then went outside the lounge to the parking lot where Melinda sold 11 grams of marijuana to Officer Russ for $30. Officer Russ had never met Melinda before. On Wednesday, December 28, 1983, Officer Russ returned to the licensed premises. Brenda was working at the back bar and Russ took a seat at that bar. Russ asked Brenda if she had gotten the marijuana in Bristol. She said she had not but that she had gotten some more pills from her doctor in Quincy. She said she had marijuana and pills in her car and that she had taken some really good cocaine earlier in the evening. Russ asked Brenda if she had any of the cocaine left and she said she did. Brenda offered to sell Russ some of the cocaine for $75. This discussion took place at the bar with Larry Mellon and Jim Bob Kitchen present. While he was seated at the bar, Brenda got her purse and went to the doorway located next to the little short bar. She took out some pill bottles and in a few moments returned to Russ and gave him an envelope. As she handed him the envelope, Brenda stated she had put the other stuff in there too. The envelope was handed across the bar in open view. The envelope contained 15 capsules of phentermine and a triangular shaped packet of cocaine. Larry Mellon was standing nearby when the transfer occurred and asked Russ what they were doing. Russ said, "Nothing." Larry then stated that he knew what they were doing and that he had seen money change hands and had seen the envelope. After he received the envelope, Russ again asked Brenda about getting some marijuana. Brenda then left the bar through the front door and returned shortly through the same door with a brown bag in her hand. She handed the bag to Officer Russ who then put the bag in his beck pocket. The bag contained .2 grams of marijuana. On January 4, 1984, Officer Russ went to the licensed premises alone. When he arrived, there were very few patrons in the bar and Brenda was seated at the back bar with her feet up. The other bartender, Kathy, was also present. Officer Russ talked with Brenda and Kathy and jokingly asked Kathy if she would like to run a couple of lines of cocaine on the bar. Be also asked Brenda if she had been to Bristol yet. Brenda responded she had but not far enough to get the marijuana. Cindy came back from the front bar and spoke to Brenda, and Russ asked Cindy if her friend with the Hawaiian stuff had come back. Cindy responded, "No." Brenda brought up the subject of pills and placed her purse on the bar end looked at several medicine vials. She took some pills out of one of the vials and placed them in a napkin and handed the napkin to Russ. Russ told Kathy that Brenda had just given him some speed and did she want some. Brenda responded by saying, "Kathy wants coke." Russ then told Cindy that Brenda had given him some speed end did she want to go outside and have some. There were a total of four employees on duty in the lounge this night. There were no doormen working. There were approximately 20 patrons in the lounge. The ten white capsules which Officer Russ received from Brenda were methyephenidate a Schedule II controlled substance under Florida law. Officer Russ's lest visit to the licensed premises was on January 6, 1984. Russ entered the lounge alone and as he entered, he spoke -with Kathy, Cindy and another bartender named Pam. Russ went to the back bar where Brenda was working. He obtained some pills from Brenda. These pills were handed across the bar to Russ and were not in any type of container. Prior to this transfer, Russ had been talking to a patron named Bucky about drugs and pills. As she handed Russ the pills, Brenda stated that she did not have anything to put them in and that she was going to take one herself. Russ told her to give Bucky one and she did. Russ then gave Brenda $20 and told her that she could get the prescription refilled and share them with him. Russ left the licensed premises about 8:55 p.m. and as he was leaving, he spoke to the two doormen. He first asked them where Hank was and they said, "Osceola Hall." Russ then told them that he had just gotten some speed and that he was going outside to take some. The two doormen just laughed. Neither of them asked him to leave. Mr. Fred Dillman was observed in the licensed premises on only one of the 14 evenings Officer Russ was in the lounge. Sometime in October, Mr. Dillman injured his hand and lost a finger in an accident on his farm. Because of this injury he was in the lounge less than he normally would have been in November and December. Mr. Leonard Coffee is the manager of the licensed premises. He manages Fred's Back Door Lounge and another lounge owned by the Respondents. He has worked as manager for 11 or 12 years and has worked in the liquor business off and on since 1955. He divides his work hours between Fred's Back Door Lounge and the other lounge he manages. Mr. Coffee was never informed by any employee that Brenda was dealing drugs in the lounge. It was not established how much of the manager's time is spent in each lounge. Mr. Coffee testified that he instructed all employees to call the police then report to them if they saw anyone with drugs in the lounge. However, only one of three bartenders who testified recalled having been instructed to report drug problems to the manager. Several employees had been approached about drugs and did not report this information to the manager or the owner. One employee, Walter Humphries, had detected a strange odor in the lounge on prior occasions and hand thrown out people in the area of the odor. On one of his visits, Officer Russ also smelled what he considered to he marijuana smoke inside the lounge. There was no clear policy established or communicated to the employees as to what they were to do if they detected drugs being used or sold on the licensed premises. Mr. Coffee testified that he told the employees to call the police end inform him if there were any drugs detected on the licensed premises. However, the employees were not aware of this policy and did not follow the policy. There were no instructions given to employees regarding the detection of drugs and what they should look for in observing and supervising the licensed premises. There were no regular employee meetings where problems or potential problems in the lounge such as drugs were discussed. At the time each employee is hired, they are interviewed and are asked for prior work references. They are not required to fill out an application and are not asked whether they use drugs. No signs were observed in the lounge prohibiting the use or possession of drugs. Approximately two years ago, Respondent, Fred Dillman, 11, was informed by his attorney that the District Beverage Captain had received information that Brenda was selling drugs at the licensed premises. Mr. Dillman confronted Brenda with this information and she denied any involvement with drugs. Brenda, at that time, had been a good employee without any problems at work for seven years. He did not terminate Brenda but asked Mr. Coffee and another employee, Mr. Poulis, to keep an eye on Brenda. Mr. Poulis works in the liquor store from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and then works in the lounge until closing time at 2:00 a.m. Prior to his accident in October, Mr. Dillman was in the lounge more at night. Mr. Dillman's father and mother do not go-to the lounge at night. The patrons of the lounge are almost entirely college age. Mr. Dillman had received information that patrons were smoking marijuana on the back deck of the lounge and that the bikers were dealing drugs on the deck. Approximately one month ago, he instructed his bartenders to stop serving the bikers. Mr. Dillman was aware that drugs were likely to be present in a primarily college age crowd. Fred's Back Door Lounge has a reputation in the community as an establishment where drugs could be obtained. The Respondents do not approve of or condone use of drugs in the licensed premises or elsewhere. Neither the Respondents nor the manager, Mr. Coffee, were aware that Brenda was selling drugs on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of the violations as set forth above and suspending the Respondent's license for a period of 90 days and impose a civil penalty of $10,000. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 1984, 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 24th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Judkins, Esquire P.O. Box 10368 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Marion D. Lamb, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1778 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 16th day of January, 1976, the licensees, I. and Christine Lockett, did unlawfully fail to maintain the operation and responsibility of their licensed business by relinquishing the control of said licensed premises to Louise Bryant, in violation of Rule 7A-3.17, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, I. J. and Christine Lockett, were holders of Series 2- COP beverage license issued by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage during the period of October 1, 1975 up to and including the date of the hearing, as evidenced by the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. This Exhibit No. 3 is a copy of the beverage license. On or before January 16, 1976, I. J. Lockett left the city of Jacksonville, Florida, and his licensed premises at 846-848 East First Street, Jacksonville, Florida, and went to Miami, Florida to bring back his wife, Christine Lockett. Christine Lockett had gone to Miami, Florida, after the death of their son. Christine Lockett had been running the bar in conjunction with I. J. Lockett prior to her departure for Miami, Florida. When I. J. Lockett left the city of Jacksonville he turned the control and management, responsibility over to one Louise Bryant. This control and management transfer was evidenced by the fact that he gave Louise Bryant $400.00 to purchase items of stock and a salary of $65.00 per week, plus additional monies if Ms. Bryant was successful in the operation of the bar. Upon his return from Miami, Florida, I. J. Lockett gave Ms. Bryant an additional $120.00 for purchase of stock items for the bar. While I. J. Lockett was in Miami and dating from January 16, 1976, Louise Bryant was authorized to purchase wine and beer and did make purchases of that wine and beer as evidenced by the checks written on her bank account to various distributors. Copies of those checks are found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. In addition, Louise Bryant had the electric service placed in her name for Chris and J's Beer Garden located at 846-848 East First Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Louise Bryant got the profits from the business as her compensation for maintaining the business in the absence of I. J. and Christine Lockett, she also paid the rent on the premises to the landlord. Sine I. J. Lockett's return from Miami, Louise Bryant has continued to work in the business.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondents, I. J. and Christine Lockett, d/b/a Chris and J's Beer Garden be revoked, but the imposition of that revocation be withheld upon a satisfactory showing that Louise Bryant is not currently the defacto manager aid operator and responsible party in the licensed premise. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles C. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 I. J. and Christine Lockett 846-848 East First Street Jacksonville, Florida
