Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent and the Mermaid Bar Respondent, whose sole corporate officer and shareholder is Robert Simone, holds alcoholic beverage license number 60-00429, Series 4-COP issued by the Department. The licensed premises is the Mermaid Bar (hereinafter referred to as the "Mermaid"), a bar located in Palm Beach County that, like a handful of others in the County, offers adult entertainment featuring female dancers wearing little or no clothing. Operation and Management of the Mermaid James Galbraith manages the Mermaid pursuant to a verbal agreement that he has with Simone. Simone nonetheless plays an active role in the day-to-day operation of the bar and pays regular visits to the establishment, usually in the daytime during the morning hours, to check on things. Among the managerial responsibilities that Simone has delegated to Galbraith is authority over personnel matters, including the hiring, disciplining and firing of the barmaids and dancers who work at the bar. Galbraith exercised such authority when, with input from Simone, he drafted the following written "[r]ules for conduct of dancers" (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"): Anyone dancing on stage [is] not allowed to show any pubic area. Anyone doing so will be dismissed. Anyone dancing on floor must wear cover up at all times. All girls are to work a minimum of 4 days. No girls are to solicit for anything (drinks, etc.). No girls are to take phone numbers or give out phone numbers. Private dances are $5.00 or $10.00 contribution. 2/ No bumping or grinding, no letting customers grab breast or pubic area. No touching of customers. You will be called down one time. If you have to be called down twice, you will be dismissed. If you have a problem with a customer, stop dancing and get a bouncer. Do not try to handle it yourself. Each dancer receives a copy of the Rules upon being hired. In addition, a copy is posted in the dancers' dressing room. When he is present at the bar, Galbraith is responsible for monitoring the activities taking place on the premises and maintaining order. He relies on the barmaids to assist him in keeping an eye on the dancers. Prior Disciplinary Action In November of 1992, the Department's predecessor, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter referred to as "DBR"), served on Respondent a Notice to Show Cause that contained the following allegations: On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: LESSIE MAE STRANGE AKA LESSIE MAE COLLIGAN, while on your licensed premises, did unlawfully commit or engage in lewdness by dancing in a topless state for Special Agent Sgt. HOOPER, rubbing her breasts across the Agent's face and body and forcefully rubbing her crotch area against the Agent's groin, simulating sexual intercourse, in exchange for U.S. Currency, contrary to Section 796.07(3)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29., F.S. On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: DEBRAH BACON, while on your licensed premises, did unlawfully commit or engage in lewdness by dancing in a topless state for Special Agent Sgt. HOOPER, rubbing her breasts across the Agent's face and body and forcefully rubbing her crotch area against the Agent's groin, simulating sexual intercourse, in exchange for U.S. Currency, contrary to Section 796.07(3)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29., F.S. On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: DEBBIE ANN SEIWELL, while on your licensed premises, did unlawfully commit or engage in lewdness by dancing in a topless state for Special Agent STOOPS and Sgt. HOOPER, rubbing her breasts across the Agent's face and body and forcefully rubbing her crotch area against the Agent's groin, simulating sexual intercourse, in exchange for U.S. Currency, contrary to Section 796.07(3)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29., F.S. On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: BARBARA GENE PORTER, the Manager/Person in Charge, did maintain a place for lewdness, by allowing female dancers to rub their exposed breasts across the faces and bodies of Special Agents STOOPS and Sgt. HOOPER and by allowing the female dancers to forcefully rub their buttocks and crotch areas into the groin areas of Special Agents STOOPS and Sgt. HOOPER, simulating sexual intercourse, a violation of Section 796.07(2)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29, F.S. These activities in which the dancers allegedly engaged with Stoops and Hooper are commonly referred to, in adult entertainment establishments, as "lap dances." On May 28, 1993, Simone signed a consent agreement acknowledging the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause and agreeing to pay a fine of $2,000.00 to settle the matter. DBR accepted and signed the agreement on July 6, 1993. The April 7, 1993, Undercover Operation On April 7, 1993, the Department conducted an undercover operation at the Mermaid in which Special Agent Johnnie Wilson participated. While Wilson was at the bar, he observed from his vantage point a female dancer whose stage name was "Kellie," as well as five or six other female dancers, in exchange for money, perform "lap dances" with patrons of the establishment. 3/ Galbraith and a barmaid were on the premises at the time and neither took any action to try to stop "Kellie" and the other dancers from "lap dancing." No arrests were made as a result of this April 7, 1993, undercover operation. The May 6, 1993, Undercover Operation Special Agent Stoops went to the Mermaid the afternoon of May 6, 1993, as part a follow-up undercover operation conducted by the Department. After he had been there for approximately 15 to 20 minutes, he was approached by one of the dancers working at the establishment that afternoon, Lucia Maria Campos. Campos asked Stoops if he wanted a "lap dance." Stoops responded in the affirmative. Campos thereupon removed her top (but not her bottoms) and proceeded to "lap dance" with a fully clothed Stoops. During the "lap dance," Campos rubbed her breasts against Stoops' chest and grinded her groin and buttocks in the area of his crotch in a provocative manner. Stoops paid Campos for the "lap dance." Stoops observed Campos "lap dance" with another patron during his visit to the Mermaid that afternoon. Although Campos performed her "lap dances" openly, in plain view, neither the barmaid on duty nor anyone else on the premises expressed any disapproval of Campos' actions. The May 12, 1993, Undercover Operation On May 12, 1993, at around 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., three detectives from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office working undercover, Jeffrey Andrews, Kevin O'Brien and Ted Smith, entered the Mermaid. The purpose of their visit was to determine if any of the dancers working at the establishment were engaging in lewd behavior. After entering the Mermaid, Andrews and O'Brien sat down next to each other at a table in front of the stage on which the dancers performed. Smith took a seat near the bar. While Andrews was seated at the table, Kerren Flores, a dancer who was working at the Mermaid that evening, came up to him and asked him if he wanted a "lap dance" for $10.00. Flores was wearing a bikini top and G-string bottom. After Andrews accepted her offer, she took off her top. Standing approximately two feet in front of Andrews, she began fondling her breasts with her hands and manipulating, and then licking, her nipples. Next, she leaned over and rubbed her bare breasts against the lower portion of Andrews' face. She then turned around, sat down on Andrews' lap and started to simulate sexual intercourse by grinding her buttocks into his groin area. The "lap dance" lasted the length of one song that was being played by the DJ over the bar's sound system. After it was over, Andrews' paid Flores the $10.00 she had requested for the "dance." Another dancer working at the Mermaid that evening was Laura Chapman. While performing on stage, she removed all of her clothing, fondled and licked her bare breasts and suggestively stroked her vaginal area. After finishing her performance on stage and putting back on her bikini top and G-string bottom, Chapman approached Andrews and inquired if he was interested in a "lap dance." Andrews said he was and, at Chapman's request, the two moved to a different table. Chapman then proceeded to remove her bikini top and performed a "lap dance" with Andrews which was virtually identical to the one Flores had performed with him earlier that evening. Andrews paid Chapman the $10.00 she had asked for to perform the "lap dance." Andrews' colleague, O'Brien, was also propositioned during the undercover operation that evening by one of the bar's dancers. Maija Liisa Cardinaux was the dancer who propositioned him. She was also helping serve drinks that evening. Cardinaux walked up to O'Brien and asked him if he wanted to order a drink. At the same time, she inquired if he wanted a "lap dance." O'Brien expressed an interest in the latter. Cardinaux led O'Brien to another area of the bar and had him sit down on a bar stool. After O'Brien was seated, Cardinaux placed her hands on his shoulders and told him to relax. Cardinaux, who was wearing a bikini top and bottom, then took off her top and started to fondle her breasts and lick her nipples while standing in front of O'Brien. Next, she put her arms around O'Brien and pulled his head into her breasts. She then let go of O'Brien, turned around, sat down on his lap and began to vigorously rub her buttocks and groin area against his crotch. These bumping and grinding movements simulating sexual intercourse lasted approximately one to one and a half minutes. Two other dancers working at the Mermaid that evening during the undercover operation, Angela Ratliffe King and Lisa Berling, gave sexually suggestive performances that were patently offensive, that lacked any serious artistic value and that the average person, applying contemporary community 4/ standards, would find, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests. King was initially dressed in a black bra and panties. During the first song that she danced to on stage, she took off her top and started to fondle her breasts. She thereupon turned her back to the audience, slapped and rubbed her buttocks, and began to fondle and stroke her vaginal area. During the second song, she removed her panties and exposed her vaginal area to the audience. She then turned around and, with her back to the audience and her legs a little more than shoulder width apart, bent over, put her arms between her legs and started to pull her buttocks apart, further exposing her vaginal area to the audience. Still bent over with her back to the audience, she began to stroke her vaginal area with her fingers as if she was masturbating. Lisa Berling gave a similar performance, except that, unlike King, she was completely nude throughout her performance and, although she started out on the stage, she concluded her performance on the counter of the bar, within an arm's length of where one of the undercover detectives, Ted Smith, was seated, along with other patrons. Galbraith's wife, Ann Galbraith, was tending bar at the time of Berling's performance and she commented to Smith about the performance upon its conclusion. From her vantage point, Ms. Galbraith was able to see most of the public area of the establishment. Her husband was in the back of the establishment near the DJ booth during most of the approximately one and a half hours that Detectives Andrews, O'Brien and Smith were in the Mermaid. At no time during the detectives' undercover operation did Galbraith, his wife, or anyone else that had been hired to work at the Mermaid do anything to discourage or stop the frequent "lap dancing" or the performances of King and Berling, notwithstanding that these activities were in violation of the Rules that Galbraith had given to each dancer and posted in the dancers' dressing room. Arrests were made as a result of the detectives' May 12, 1993, undercover operation. The action taken by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in the instant case is no different than what it has done in similar cases involving other adult entertainment establishments where there is "lap dancing" or similar activity taking place. Respondent's Liability Although Simone may not have been present on the premises during either the April 7, 1993, May 6, 1993, or May 12, 1993, undercover operations, given the persistent and repeated instances of "lap dancing" and other flagrant acts of indecency engaged in by the dancers working at the Mermaid, the inference is made that Simone either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked these acts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent liable for the violations alleged in the amended Administrative Action and penalizing Respondent therefor by revoking its alcoholic beverage license, license number 60-00429, Series 4-COP. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1994.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent is guilty of serving alcoholic beverages to minors and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 58-01997, series 2-COP, for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. The licensed premises were located at 536 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. Respondent abandoned the premises at the end of August, 1989. The bar owned and operated by Respondent is no longer in operation, and the license is no longer active. On at least three occasions prior to the incident in question, one or more representatives of Petitioner had warned Lester Thomas, the sole shareholder and officer of Respondent, that he or his company's employees were serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons. On one of these occasions, Mr. Thomas complained, "Every time you come around here, there are problems. You catch me." At about 11:15 p.m. on August 5, 1989, two representatives of Petitioner entered the Negril Cove bar and observed Mary Ann Carmody, age 16 years, consuming an alcoholic beverage that a companion had purchased from Respondent. At all material times on that evening, Mr. Thomas himself was tending the bar at Negril Cove. At no time was Ms. Carmody asked for any identification. Under the circumstances, Mr. Thomas permitted Ms. Carmody to consume the alcoholic beverage on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking the license of Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Jerry S. Luxenburg 1214 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, by allowing Petitioner to be sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes, Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. Respondent manufactures rubber parts for housewares, aircraft, and the automotive industry. Respondent typically employs an untrained workforce then provides its employees with on-the-job training. Respondent experiences a high turnover in entry level jobs. Petitioner began working for Respondent on or about November 15, 1995. Her immediate supervisor was Walter Tate. Part of Mr. Tate's job was to train Petitioner how to operate a rubber injection machine. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Tate ever touched Petitioner or spoke to her in a sexually inappropriate manner. On December 6, 1995, Petitioner's hand was injured at work. This injury occurred when another employee drove a forklift into the platform where Petitioner was working. Mr. Tate did not blame Petitioner for the accident. He did not use the accident as a means to sexually discriminate against Petitioner. On or about February 16, 1996, Petitioner's machine caused a shut down in production. The machine broke down when someone placed a metal bar in the feed hole. The metal bar broke off between the machine's feed hole and its extruder, preventing the rubber from passing through. The machine was a silicon extruder; this type of machine is usually turned off when the designated operator takes a break. Based on a good faith belief that Petitioner was responsible for damage to her machine, Mr. Tate gave Petitioner a verbal warning for using the metal bar instead of a plastic one. Mr. Tate advised Petitioner that the next time she would be given a written warning. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Tate had any hidden agenda when he reprimanded Petitioner. Petitioner became visibly upset about the verbal reprimand and cursed Mr. Tate. Subsequently, Petitioner signed an employee warning report, indicating that she disagreed with the verbal warning but gave no reasons for her disagreement. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner met with Respondent's plant manager, Steve Wieczorek, and second-shift plant superintendent, Robbie Misenheimer. Petitioner complained that she did not like Mr. Tate telling her what to do because she already knew her job. Petitioner also complained that she did not like Mr. Tate's use of profanity. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner never complained to Respondent about any form of sexual harassment or discrimination by Mr. Tate during this or any other meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Wieczorek took handwritten notes of Petitioner's complaints. According to Petitioner, she signed these notes before she left the meeting. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Wieczorek typed the notes in accordance with his customary procedure. Mr. Wieczorek and Mr. Misenheimer signed the typed notes before placing them in Petitioner's personnel file. Petitioner did not sign the typed notes. The location of the handwritten notes was not established during the hearing. After the meeting, Mr. Wieczorek directed Mr. Misenheimer to investigate Petitioner's complaints. In accordance with that directive, Mr. Misenheimer talked to Mr. Tate and several of Petitioner's co-workers. Mr. Misenheimer concluded that there was no merit to Petitioner's complaints that Mr. Tate was treating her unfairly. Nevertheless, Mr. Misenheimer continued to check with Petitioner personally and to observe Mr. Tate for several days to ensure that Petitioner was not being mistreated. On February 27, 1996, Petitioner walked out of the plant, voluntarily leaving her workstation in the middle of her shift. Petitioner did not advise Mr. Tate or any other supervisor of her reason for leaving the work site. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Tate threatened Petitioner for turning him in before she abandoned her workstation. After leaving the plant, Petitioner did not call Respondent for three days to explain why she had not returned to work. Respondent did not attempt to contact Petitioner during this time. In accordance with the company's personnel policies, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on March 1, 1996. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent's policy was that sexual harassment was not to be tolerated. This policy was communicated to employees in group meetings. Petitioner admits that she received instruction on the procedure for complaining about sexual discrimination when she began working for Respondent. However, she could not remember whether she received the information in a training session or in a printed form. Respondent posted information in the employee break room about state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committe, Esquire 17 South Palafox Place, Suite 322 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Heather Fischer Lindsay, Esquire Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs 1400 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Are the four notices of violation against Respondents valid, and if valid, may the Department of Transportation require that the allegedly offending signs be removed?
Findings Of Fact On or about September 21, 2000, DOT became aware that two trucks bearing written material were parked adjacent to DOT's right-of-way on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) in St. Johns County in such a manner that the written material was visible from the main-traveled way of I-95. DOT issued four Notices of Violation against the two trucks. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.823. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4188T. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.849. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4189T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4423T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4424T. All of the foregoing notices alleged that the trucks are in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in that they are unpermitted signs. On October 24, 2000, DOT issued a letter to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., advising it that the trucks which were issued the above- referenced notices of violation had been moved temporarily out of view and then returned to visibility at each other's previous milepost location. The letter advised that notwithstanding the movement of the trucks within their general location, the trucks remained illegal signs pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. I-95 is part of the Interstate Highway System. The two trucks are located at times within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of I-95. The trucks can be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity traveling on I-95. Admitted Fact Four of the parties' prehearing stipulation was that at the time the notices of violation were issued, the trucks displayed the words "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc." However, their Admitted Fact Five, incorporating photographs, and other photographs in evidence reveal that one truck had the foregoing display without the slashes and one truck juxtaposed the phrases "Great Food" and "Adult Toys," also without the slashes. The trucks were located within 15 feet of the right-of-way fence and were parked on raised mounds of dirt, elevating them above the surrounding terrain. Immediately adjacent to the trucks were light fixtures with halogen lights aimed at the sides of the trucks. If electricity had been available, the lights could have illuminated the vehicles. The trucks were intentionally placed at their locations. As of January 5, 2001, additional verbiage was added to the trucks which states, "Hunt & Fish Camp." As of the March 7, 2001, date of hearing, the trucks still contained this additional verbiage. On both trucks, the letters are all capitalized; the size of the letters and the paint colors used call the viewer's attention to the phrases, "CAFE? EROTICA," "WE DARE TO BARE," "ADULT TOYS," "GREAT FOOD," and "EXIT 94." The abbreviation "INC.," is the phrase smallest in size, located at the very bottom right, relatively inconspicuous, and the words, "hunt & fish camp," follow, vertical to the rest of the verbiage. There are no addresses, telephone numbers, arrows, or other identifying information. Respondent Cafe Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., is a Florida corporation. At all times material, Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., has been a corporation in good standing with the Florida Department of State, which has registered and approved its corporate name pursuant to Section 607.0401, Florida Statutes. Asher G. Sullivan, Jr., a/k/a Jerry Sullivan, is incorporator, President, shareholder, and Director of the corporation, which will hereafter be referred to as "Exit 94, Inc." Exit 94, Inc., owns, insures, and maintains the two trucks which are the subject of this proceeding. Exit 94, Inc., likewise owns the real property on which the trucks are located, which parcel consists of approximately 11 acres situated between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Exit 94, Inc., does not sell food or adult toys. It does not offer dancers for public viewing. The business of Exit 94, Inc., is developing a hunting and fishing camp at the property it owns, the property where its trucks were cited by DOT, between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Respondent Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica, is a Florida corporation which holds the license and owns the assets of the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is president, shareholder, and owner of Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., which will hereafter be referred-to as "Café Erotica." The St. Johns Management Company manages the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is the President and shareholder of the St. Johns Management Company. The Café Erotica restaurant is a 24-hour per day, full-service restaurant which features dancers clad in bathing suits and which sells adult toys. The Café Erotica restaurant is located at 2620 State Road 207 (SR-207), at the intersection of SR 207 and the exit 94 off-ramps from I-95. The real property owned by Café Erotica is not contiguous to the subject real property owned by Exit 94, Inc. The real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., which is the subject of DOT's notices of violation is approximately seven miles from the Café Erotica restaurant. The Café Erotica restaurant currently advertises on its premises and on a billboard at exit 94 of I-95. In the past, Café Erotica has advertised "we dare to bare," "adult toys," and "exit 94" on other billboards located adjacent to I- 95 in St. Johns County. Café Erotica no longer rents billboards in these locations. The advertisements of Café Erotica currently at exit 94 of I-95 include the words, "private dances," and "great food/adult toys." The advertising is specifically directed at motorists, including truck drivers, on I-95. In addition to the real property where its trucks were cited by DOT, which real property Exit 94, Inc., holds by warranty deed, Exit 94, Inc., leases property at the southeast corner of I-95's exit 93, where SR-206 intersects with I-95. At that location, Exit 94, Inc., displays a 14-foot by 25-foot permanent billboard sign reading "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Great Food/Adult Toys/Exit 94, Inc." (Note juxtaposition of part of the corporate name). Below this billboard, on the same leased property, is a smaller sign stating "Fish Camp" with a telephone number (P-11; TR 66-64, 73- 74, 183-184). Exit 94, Inc., claims to maintain an office and a telephone on this leased property. Mr. Sullivan's primary business is that of renting billboards for advertising purposes, which he owns. He has advertised on leased signs and has knowledge of DOT's sign permit requirements. At one time, Mr. Sullivan intended to place a billboard on the property owned by Exit 94, Inc. He has not done so. Neither Café Erotica nor Exit 94, Inc., has applied to DOT for sign permits for the subject trucks, nor paid any sign permit fees for them. No sign permits have been issued to any entity for the subject trucks. When the Notices of Violation were issued, DOT inspectors did not enter on the real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., or pull any business licenses for the property. They viewed the trucks from I-95. No improvements were visible from I-95. DOT did not undertake any investigation to determine the owner(s) of the subject trucks or subject real property. Café Erotica does not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, and no citizen testified that the trucks had caused him/her to patronize the Café Erotica. DOT witnesses acknowledged that the Notices of Violation issued to Café Erotica were essentially issued in error because DOT did not know the identity of the owner of the subject trucks and real property. Upon discovering that Café Erotica did not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, DOT made no effort to dismiss the violations against Café Erotica. Jerry Sullivan has decision-making authority for both Respondents as a corporate officer of both corporations. Jerry Sullivan makes management decisions concerning Café Erotica, including whether, and how, to advertise. Jerry Sullivan has directed all activity on the Exit 94, Inc., property. He anticipates creating, maintaining, and charging people for the privilege of using the subject property as a fishing and hunting camp. He also intends to reward employees and clients of his various enterprises with free privileges at the camp. Ninety percent of the time, the subject trucks are parked on the subject property. However, from time to time, the trucks, one of which was burned out and one of which has a "for sale" sign painted on its windshield, are driven off the Exit 94, Inc., property to haul equipment and corn to the subject property, for "truck maintenance," and for incidental uses in connection with Exit 94, Inc., and Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, including Café Erotica. On some of these occasions, the trucks are parked in the parking lot of the Café Erotica restaurant. The trucks are used off the Exit 94, Inc., property only two or three times per month. Except when under repair, they can be driven on the roads and highways. Exit 94, Inc., paid approximately $35,000 for the subject property on or about April 9, 1999, well before the notices of violation. Eight months prior to hearing (approximately three months before the notices of violation), Exit 94, Inc. dug a pond in a naturally low spot and/or a natural basin where Mr. Sullivan believed a pond originally had been on the subject property. A solar panel pump was installed to put water into the excavation because getting electricity run to the property was prohibitively expensive. Inspection of the subject property by DOT personnel only occurred about two-and-one-half weeks before the disputed- fact hearing. At that time, the solar pump used to fill the pond with water was not working well, so that the possibility of fish living in the rather shallow pond was highly unlikely. The pond was not stocked with fish. The property was not stocked with game animals. There was also one very ramshackle deer blind on the property and a permanent metal, utility pole had been erected to support another deer blind. There were no utilities, restrooms, offices, or facilities to clean game on the premises. No fishing equipment was available for purchase. This situation was memorialized by photographs in evidence. The Exit 94, Inc., property has only one entrance which is not directly accessible from a public roadway. To reach Exit 94, Inc.'s, only entrance, a car gets off I-95 at exit 94, where Café Erotica is located, and proceeds to a private dirt road created and owned by Georgia-Pacific timber company, and then drives approximately one mile along that dirt road over the timber company's land. Thousands of acres of scrub pine belonging to the timber company surround Exit 94, Inc.'s property. Entrance to the timber company land is through a fence/gate. The timber company gate is "posted," warning that hunting is not permitted on its land and that violators will be prosecuted. The Exit 94, Inc., property is also "posted," and therefore not open to the general public. There is a "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., Hunt & Fish Camp" sign at its entrance. It cannot be inferred, as urged by DOT, that if a real property owner "posts" its property so the owner may subsequently prosecute trespassers and poachers, the owner also cannot charge a fee to customers, invited guests, or business invitees who hunt or fish on its property with its permission. Travelling as described above, there are approximately nine and one-half miles between exit 94 of I-95 and the Exit 94, Inc., property. There are no signs advertising a "hunt and fish camp" on this stretch of land, but Exit 94, Inc., has its billboard and other sign at Exit 93. (See Finding of Fact 22.) Exit 94, Inc., presented accounts showing it spent over $7,003 maintaining its signs since 1999 and over $12,000 on the subject trucks. Exit 94, Inc., lists addresses and locations other than the subject property as its business address(es) for various purposes. It maintains no office or telephone on the subject property. The only building on the subject property is a very small storage shack, placed there by Exit 94, Inc. The shack is not habitable as overnight lodging. It was designed to hold repair equipment and corn for seeding the pond for waterfowl and seeding the woods for deer. There is no evidence whether this method of luring game from the surrounding area is legal or illegal, but it is certainly feasible, given the location of the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 38.) Russell Market is General Manager for the Café Erotica restaurant. He was directed by Mr. Sullivan to check on Exit 94, Inc.'s, subject property, and he did so once a week and scattered corn for nine months. He saw wild turkeys on the subject property. Bill King is affiliated with Mr. Sullivan's companies. He has not hunted the subject property, but he sighted one of the deer stands. No witness testified to having camped overnight on the subject property. Bill Harry, who is employed by Mr. Sullivan, has hunted the subject property three or four times without success, despite once seeing a deer. Jerry Sullivan killed a deer on the subject property. There is no parking lot on the subject property. Respondents' witnesses testified that the subject trucks are parked on raised mounds of earth because the subject property is swampy. Only several hundred-by-60 feet have been cleared of brush. There is no telephone service to the subject property. If someone dials the telephone number listed for Exit 94, Inc. on its application to be a fish farm (see Finding of Fact 55) which is the same number on its sign at I-95's exit number 93 (see Finding of Fact 22), a recorded message relays the caller to a telephone number for the cell phone Mr. Sullivan carries on his person. No utilities are currently available on the subject property, but the solar pump is in use at the pond. Bill Harry repaired the pond pump a few days after showing DOT personnel around the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 36.) At hearing, he testified that the pond is now filling well with water. When the pond is full, Mr. Sullivan intends to stock it with fish. Exit 94, Inc., holds an occupational license from St. Johns County as a "fish camp." In issuing this license, the County accepted Exit 94, Inc.'s, designation of its business without further inquiry. Exit 94, Inc., has applied for a "fish farm" license from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Exit 94, Inc., produced invoices sent to clients for hunting and fishing privileges on the subject property, corresponding checks in payment, and tax returns. Patricia Doorbar, bookkeeper for Exit 94, Inc. and all of Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, testified that she had drafted all of the invoices, and had prepared the tax returns. She further testified that she maintained Exit 94, Inc.'s corporate financial books in accord with generally accepted accounting principles. The invoices and payments reflect that other business entities controlled by Mr. Sullivan or his family members were billed and paid for use of the Exit 94, Inc., property. Exit 94, Inc., currently operates at a loss, made up as necessary by Mr. Sullivan. No legitimate reason was demonstrated to pierce the corporate veil of any of Mr. Sullivan's corporations. Approximately two weeks before the disputed-fact hearing, Exit 94, Inc., made improvements to the subject property. These included laying out feed corn on the ground, repairing a deer stand so it could support one or more hunters, and repairing the solar pump. See supra. These improvements were memorialized by photographs in evidence. Respondents asserted that DOT has selectively enforced the sign law against them on the basis of many photographs of trucks bearing written material which were admitted in evidence. The trucks typically carry a business name, address and telephone number. Some carried only a business name. DOT rarely issues notices of violations for trucks. Within the last three-and-one-half years, trucks constituted approximately five such notices out of 3500 sign violation notices of all kinds, not just off-premises signs. The notices to these two Respondents constitute four of the five notices. DOT has promulgated no rules or policies specifying the factors to be considered when evaluating whether an operational truck constitutes an "off-premises sign" worthy of a violation notice. In the normal course of business, DOT inspectors determine whether trucks constitute "on-premises signs" on a case-by-case analysis which weighs content of the sign, usage of the truck, location and length of time the truck is in a single location, and whether the sign content advertises the business at the location where the truck is parked, advertises another business, or advertises anything at all. Inspectors have wide discretion in issuing notices of violation. With respect to the majority of Respondents' photographs presented at hearing, DOT representatives gave reasonable explanations why the truck owners had not been notified of violations, usually because the truck was being operated on the highway, was not parked over-long away from the business premises which it named, or was parked on the property of the business to which it belonged or which it named. In one instance, a contractor's truck was not charged with a violation because it was parked at a construction site which also bore a sign proclaiming that the construction work was being done by that contractor. Sometimes the reason a truck had not been cited was because the truck had not been located. DOT does not research which corporations or persons own or operate trucks painted with business names, and apparently, precision in painting a business name on other operable trucks had no effect on DOT's decision to treat other operable trucks as "on-premises signs" so that no notices of violation were issued against them. Similar photographs of trucks which Mr. Sullivan had sent to DOT were personally evaluated by DOT's Assistant Right- of-Way Manager for Operations, but this measure was only in response to the Respondents' allegations of selective enforcement in the instant case. The Assistant Right-of-Way Manager directed DOT district personnel to take either further investigative or regulatory action as she instructed on a case- by-case basis. One truck for "Smiley's" was subsequently issued a violation notice.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 7th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 10 West Church Street, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, to wit: Cynthia Brown, did unlawfully commit a lewd act with another by dancing in a topless state for Vice Detective Cornell B. Iverson and attempting to place the nipples of her breasts in his mouth and attempting to rub her vagina against his knee and hand, and also fondling Iverson's penis with her hands, in violation of s 798.02, F.S. thereby violating s 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 7th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 10 West Church Street, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, to wit: Gaynell Moore, did unlawfully commit a lewd act with another by dancing in a topless state and allowing a patron, one Bruce Anthony Timmons, to fondle her buttocks and vagina while she rubbed her bare breasts in his face, in violation of s 798.02, F.S. thereby violating s 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations found in the amended Notice to Show Cause the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as The Harem, located at 10 West Church Street, Jacksonville, Florida, was licensed under License No. 26-957, Series 2-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On June 7, 1976, Officer C. B. Iverson of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, entered the licensed premises. Officer Iverson entered the premises in the capacity of an undercover officer making a routine check. Shortly after his entry, another officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, one W. L. Geiger, came into the licensed premises. One of the dancers in the bar, working at that time, was Cynthia Brown. Brown approached Iverson and asked Iverson if he wanted her to dance. She danced for Iverson for the duration of three or four dance records. During the course of the dancing, she attempted to place the nipples of her breasts into the mouth of Iverson and attempted to rub her vagina on his hand, which hand was placed on his knee while he was seated. Other persons were in the licensed premises at that time, to include a female bartender and four other dancers. None of these individuals attempted to stop the conduct of Cynthia Brown. On the same date, June 7, 1976, Bruce Anthony Timmons was one of the patrons. Timmons was seated on a bar stool and was approached by Gaynell Moore, a dancer working in the licensed premises at that time. Gaynel Moore was dressed in a black brassiere and bikini type outfit. After being approached by Moore, Timmons placed his mouth on the breast of Gaynell Moore. Timmons also massaged the vagina of Gaynell Moore and fondled her buttocks. None of the aforementioned employees in the licensed premises attempted to stop Gaynell Moore's activity with Timmons. All the circumstances between Moore and Timmons occured during the course of her dancing for him.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as the Harem, license no. 76-957 be suspended for a period of 10 days. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact At about half past ten o'clock on the night of December 14, 1977, Daniel James Cobb, than a beverage officer under the supervision of Lieutenant Robert E. Baxley, arrived at the Mezzanine Lounge at the corner of Intendencia and South Palafox Streets in Pensacola. He entered through the south door, went upstairs, and sat down at a table. An Asain woman who said her name was Charlene asked him if he wanted a drink and asked him to buy a drink for her, which he did. Subsequently, he bought a bottle of champagne for $18.00, at her request. Other customers at other tables also bought drinks for this woman, who went from table to table, occasionally stopping to chat with Officer Cobb. She asked him if he wanted a "chick," offered her own sexual services for $50.00, and said that he could have two girls for $100.00. Officer Cobb left the premises alone about midnight. At approximately quarter past eight on the night of January 5, 1978, Officer Cobb returned to the Mezzanine Lounge. Again he went upstairs and sat at a table. After he had ordered a drink for himself, he bought a drink for a dancer who sat down at his table. A second dancer, a blonde known professionally as Gigi, came over and offered to dance "for tips." Gigi, who is also known as Christine Haney Hampton, performed an impromptu dance after Officer Cobb gave her $5.00. At Gigi's insistence, he then bought a bottle of champagne for $30.00, which Gigi opened. When she did, the cork ricocheted off the ceiling and hit Lieutenant Baxley, who had taken a seat at a nearby table. Lieutenant Baxley had arrived 15 or 30 minutes after Officer Cobb, and was drinking bourbon, when he was hit by the cork. Maintaining the pretense that they were strangers, Officer Cob invited Lieutenant Baxley to join him for champagne. Lieutenant Baxley accepted, struck up a conversation with Gigi, then left with Gigi for another table. Shortly thereafter Officer Cobb left the premises alone. Gigi said to Lieutenant Baxley, "If you buy me a bottle of champagne, we'll have a party." She told him she would do anything for $100.00. Lieutenant Baxley purchased a bottle of champagne for $30.00, and he also bought three flowers for Gigi for $2.00, at her request. At one point on the night of January 5, 1978, respondent Julie Schofield came upstairs. When asked, she said Gigi could not leave early. Respondents purchased the Mezzanine Lounge from a Mr. Aliberti some three years ago. At the time it was a topless bar. For the first three months they owned it, respondents did not operate it as a topless bar, but they "reverted." The dancers were topless on the nights of December 14, 1977, and January 5, 1978. Respondent Julie Schofield spent five nights a week at the Mezzanine Lounge during that period. Respondent Frank Joseph Schofield visited the premises daily. After Gigi had worked for respondents as a dancer for two or three months, respondents entered into an agreement with her husband, Harry Hampton, who undertook the management of the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, called the "Hideaway Lounge area." Mr. Schofield described the agreement in these words: "[M]y mark up percentage is 600 percent or as close as possible to it. any additional income may be disbursed as he sees fit. At the even- ings close Mr. Hampton gives me a sheet showing total liquor and bar sales for the evening. The cash for the evening is also turned in minus whatever cash disburs[e]ments were made. Most of the excess profit is derived from cocktail sales at 1000 percent mark up and bonus money is handed out from that by Mr. Hampton as determined by the number of drinks they had. This is approximately 30 percent of the drink price." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. The more drinks the girls sold, the more money they made. Respondents terminated this agreement after hearing that Mr. Hampton was inviting bar patrons elsewhere for "exotic treats" and "personalized service." Respondents made no investigation of Mr. Hampton before hiring him. On January 18, 1978, Officer Cob and Lieutenant Baxley arrested Christine Hampton and the Asian woman who had identified herself as Charlene, who is also known as Phung Kim Holland. Although both women were charged criminally, neither was convicted. Ms. Holland was acquitted after trial by jury; Ms. Hampton pleaded nolo contendere, but adjudication was withheld. After the arrests, respondents "fired a few people." In addition, respondents posted a sign on a wall urging patrons to report the solicitation of drinks to the management and placed "table tents" imprinted with the same message on various tables; and they also installed more lights on the licensed premises. At one point, Mr. Schofield asked some of the employees of the Mezzanine Lounge not to solicit for prostitution. Petitioner instituted the present proceedings by serving respondents with a notice to show cause on March 17, 1978. An informal conference on March 24, 1978, was attended by Mr. Schofield and Lieutenant Baxley. Respondents were not represented by counsel at the informal conference. On May 23, 1978, respondents' counsel wrote Lieutenant Baxley suggesting that the notice to show cause be dismissed "[i]n light of the outcome of the criminal cases." Respondents' exhibit No. 1. On August 24, 1978, the petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing, even though respondents have never made demand for formal hearing. On August 28, 1978, notice of hearing issued setting the final hearing for September 29, 1978, but the hearing was continued on application of respondents' counsel, according to the file. The final hearing was next noticed for December 13, 1979. On December 13, 1979, according to the file, counsel for petitioner sought a continuance on grounds of Lieutenant Baxley's illness and represented that counsel for respondents had no objection to the continuance; and the final hearing was again continued. Also on December 13, 1978, respondents' counsel (who had previously corresponded with counsel for petitioner, respondents' exhibit No. 3) wrote a letter to Lieutenant Baxley "objecting to any kind of hearing . . . because so much time has transpired [sic] since the original offense." Respondents' exhibit No. 2. Respondents' counsel did not send copies of this letter either to petitioner's counsel or to the hearing officer.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondents' license in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Kerrigan, Esquire 224 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the emergency order of suspension and notice to show cause dated November 25, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Lunar Guppies, Inc. is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, number 58-03679, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Space Fish Cafe (Cafe) which is located at 536 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. All activities described herein took place at the licensed premises. Michael Brown is the president and majority shareholder of Lunar Guppies, Inc. Michael Buchanan is the corporation's vice president and he owns fifteen percent of the shares issued by the entity. At all times material to the allegations of this case, both owners, Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan, were present on the licensed premises. Some time prior to November 18, 1991, Mr. Brown was contacted by an individual known to him only as "Merle." Apparently, Merle represented the band known as "G.G. Allin and the Murder Junkies" (hereinafter referred to as the group or the band) and was responsible for seeking work for the group. After some discussions, the parties reached a verbal agreement whereby the band would play the second set at the Cafe on November 18, 1991. Flyers for the performance billed the event as the group's only Florida show. All arrangements were verbal, and were conducted between Mr. Brown and Merle. Initially, Mr. Brown expected the band to perform at 11:00 p.m. on the designated date; however, after checking in and reviewing the equipment, the group announced that they would return to perform around 11:30 p.m. During the check in meeting with the band, Mr. Brown advised the group that he did not expect them to damage property belonging to the Cafe. Prior to the group's performance Cafe staff had covered speakers with plastic to protect them from moisture. Also, areas of the stage were lined with plastic. According to Mr. Brown, such precautions are standard when rowdy bands are booked for the Cafe. The speakers, which belong to the Cafe, are expensive and sensitive to moisture. Spills from beverages are not uncommon with certain types of bands. Also prior to the group's performance on November 18, 1991, Mr. Brown prepared a written warning which was posted on the Cafe's door. While there is some dispute as to the exact language of the warning, the purpose was to warn Cafe patrons that the performance (by the band) was expected to contain language and subject matter which might be considered offensive or obscene by some. The exact language of the warning is unknown because shortly after the police arrived on the scene someone removed the sign and its current whereabouts is unknown. That the sign existed is not disputed. Upon his arrival back at the Cafe, the lead singer of the band, G.G. Allin a/k/a Kevin Allin (Allin), appeared for the band's microphone check wearing only a hooded jacket, studded dog collar, and shoes. Shortly after the check, removed his jacket to reveal that he was nude but for the dog collar and shoes. Also at that time the drummer for the band appeared and played in the buff as well. Just prior to, and during the first song performed by the band: Allin broke glass and rubbed it into his head causing a flow of blood which continued to stream down his head throughout his performance; he smashed his microphone into his head to further damage the wounds; he constantly grabbed his penis; and he leaped off the stage, knocked a female patron to the floor, and rubbed his face into her groin area simulating oral sex. The female patron kicked Allin and resisted his advances. At the conclusion of the first song, Allin grabbed a male patron and rubbed his penis against the man's head. During the second song, Allin's acts prompted most of the Cafe's patrons to flee the interior of the licensed premises. Most fled after Allin defecated onto the Cafe floor, urinated into his own hand (so he could drink it), followed by his licking the floor (with the feces) and spitting and throwing it at patrons. When Allin returned to the stage, he stuck his finger into his rectum and rubbed the microphone in the anal area as well. During the remainder of the performance (three or four more songs), Allin continued to dance around the Cafe (encumbered only by the microphone cord), continued to fondle his penis, allowed at least one patron to fondle his penis, and poured himself a beer at the bar. At all times described above, Mr. Buchanan observed the performance and did nothing to deter Allin. During the performance there was a sound and/or light technician above the Cafe's main floor who watched the band and, presumably, assisted. The Cafe has flood lights above the main floor area where Allin performed. When the patrons from the Cafe fled into the street outside, officers in a patrolling police car observed the commotion. Two officers, Browning and Arnott, went to the Cafe to investigate. Upon entering the premises, Officer Browning observed Allin on the floor rubbing his head into glass. Obviously, Officer Browning noted that Allin was au naturale. At that point the band's performance ceased. The term "performance" has been used herein loosely to describe what occurred at the Cafe; such "acts" could hardly be described as entertainment. After taking statements from Cafe patrons, the police officers filed criminal charges against Allin in connection with the incidents described above. Incidental to the arrest, Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan voluntarily went to the police station and filed sworn statements regarding the night's activities. While Mr. Buchanan was present behind the bar during the entire performance (approximately twenty-six minutes, six songs) his sworn statement is replete with factual errors regarding what occurred. Additionally, Mr. Brown's sworn police statement incorrectly chronicled the acts which had occurred. Mr. Brown's explanation at the hearing has not been deemed credible nor were his comments regarding the disappearance of the written warning which had been posted on the Cafe's door. At the start of Allin's performance, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Brown should have provided appropriate security for the Cafe patrons. At least one female patron was touched by Allin and demonstrated her displeasure at such conduct. Volunteer security help (which incidently fled with the others) is not sufficient when a band's performance might be considered to be, and anticipated to be, rowdy (as the plastic suggested). Once the band member Allin exhibited inappropriate conduct (as early as the first two songs), the Cafe owners should have taken measures to stop the performance. Given public sensitivity related to exposure to body fluids, the Cafe owners were negligent in not aborting Allin's act once it began, and in not previewing his proposed performance since they were made aware of the potentially objectionable nature of the show (as evidenced by the warning and Mr. Brown's prior conversations with band members and groupies). Even if Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan did not know the full extent of Allin's proposed performance, once he exhibited offensive and lewd conduct, they bore a burden to interrupt the act and take precautionary measures to insure the safety of the Cafe patrons. Mr. Brown's explanation that he was fearful for his own safety (and thus excused from action) has not been deemed credible. At the minimum, Mr. Brown or Mr. Buchanan could have sought assistance from 911 (which was not done). Had the police not arrived when they did, no telling how long the Cafe owners would have allowed Allin to reign. Presumably, until the set contracted for was finished. As it was, Mr. Brown paid the band for a partial performance. Subsequent to the Allin performance, the Cafe owners have drafted a written agreement to attempt to avoid any reoccurrence of an unlawful performance. The Cafe did not prior to, or subsequent to, November 18, 1991, allow an unlawful performance such as that which is described herein to be conducted on its licensed premises. The acts which occurred on November 18, 1991, are the sole basis for disciplinary action against this licensee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days retroactive to the date the emergency order was entered. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-7697 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: The Petitioner footnoted many of its proposed findings of fact. Such footnotes are not accepted as they contain argument, comment, or irrelevant matters. The proposed findings have been addressed without reference to footnotes as follows: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "Once back on the stage" paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 8 it is unknown if Merle was, in fact, the band's manager; otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. With the deletion of the second sentence which is rejected as hearsay, paragraph 9 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: NOTE: Respondent's proposed findings of fact begin with the numbered paragraph 4. Paragraphs 4 through 8 are accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as argument or comment. The weight of the credible evidence suggests that, utilizing ordinary care, the Cafe owners should have made inquiries to assure that the band would not perform lewd acts (they were on notice of the band's potential for offensive behavior). The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent knew the band's performance might be offensive or obscene and failed to use ordinary care to assure it would not be unlawful. Paragraph 13 is accepted to the extent that it states most patrons fled; however, others remained and the Respondent allowed the performance to continue. COPIES TO: Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Howard S. Marks Graham, Clark, Pohl & Jones 369 North New York Avenue Post Office Drawer 1690 Winter Park, Florida 32790
