The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on grounds that (1) illicit drugs were sold and delivered on its premises by its agents and employees, and (2) its premises was used for the selling and delivery of illicit drugs.
Findings Of Fact Butch Cassidy's Saloon Licensee, 1431 Corporation, owns a business known as Butch Cassidy's Saloon located at 1431 North Federal Highway, Dania, Florida. In connection with its operation of Butch Cassidy's, Licensee holds alcoholic beverage license No. 16-02422 series 2-COP. Under this license, Licensee sells beer and wine for on-premises consumption. Soft drinks and sandwiches are also served. The entertainment consists of female nude dancers who perform to juke box music. Licensee is owned by Don Austin and George Sherman. Austin and Sherman operate and manage Butch Cassidy's Saloon; they alternate work shifts so that, except for short temporary absences, one or the other is always on the premises. The premises contain a bar, a stage and runway for the female dancers, two dressing rooms, a business office, and rest rooms. It is dimly lit, though not completely dark; the lighting is most pronounced above the pool tables and along the length of the dance stage. II. Sale or Delivery of Controlled Substances on Premises On August 10, 1981, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Beverage Officer L. Terminello entered Butch Cassidy's Saloon ("the premises") with a confidential informant. After sitting at the rear of the premises, he asked "Connie," a female dancer employed by Licensee, if she' could sell him some quaalude tablets; she answered affirmatively. Several minutes later, she returned and handed him five tablets; he paid her $15. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets by the Broward County Sheriff's Office revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P-16.) On August 12, 1981, at approximately 9:40 p.m., Officer Terminello again entered the premises and sat at a table at the rear. After some initial conversation, a customer known as "Jerry" asked him if he would buy some ludes"; Terminello agreed. Jerry placed the tablets on Terminello's table. Terminello picked them up and gave him $3 for each tablet. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P- 15.) Later on that evening (August 12, 1981), Connie, in response to Officer Terminello's request, sold him another quaalude tablet for $2. The transaction took place, again, at a table located opposite the stage, at the rear of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablet revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P-17.) On August 15, 1981, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Officer Terminello again entered the premises and sat at a table at the rear. He asked a female dancer known as "Dusty" (who was employed on the premises) whether she had any cocaine or quaaludes. She said she had none but offered, instead, a marijuana cigarette which she took from her pocketbook and handed him. He left her a tip of $1 for the cigarette. This drug transaction occurred in the vicinity of the pool table, an area which is well-lighted in relation to other parts of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the cigarette confirmed that it contained cannabis. (Testimony of Terminello; p-18.) On August 19, 1981, at approximately 10:40 p.m., Officer Terminello reentered the premises and sat at another table in the vicinity of the pool table. He again asked Dusty, a female dancer, if he could buy some cocaine. She said he might be able to purchase some from "Don," the doorman, but that he sold a lot of cocaine by "stepping on it"--a street term for cutting cocaine. She told him that another dancer, known as "Renee," could provide better cocaine; he decided to wait for Renee. While waiting, he asked Dusty if she would sell him some quaalude tablets; she agreed and delivered two tablets to him at his table. He paid her $3 each. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P-19.) Dusty then asked Terminello if he wanted to smoke a "joint," meaning a marijuana cigarette. They then walked outside to the parking lot and smoked the cigarette. Subsequent laboratory analysis indicated that the cigarette contained cannabis. (Testimony of Terminello; P-20.) Later that evening, at about 1:00 a.m., Officer Terminello returned to the premises and contacted Dusty for the cocaine promised earlier. Dusty went over and talked to Renee, then returned to Terminello's table near the pool table. She told him that the cocaine would cost $80. He handed her $80 which she placed in her pocketbook. Shortly thereafter, she returned from a dressing room and handed him a plastic bag containing white powder. This exchange took place in an area where there were 15-20 patrons; several of them were 2-3 feet from Terminello. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the powder revealed the presence of cocaine. (Testimony of Terminello; P-21.) A short time later, Renee asked Officer Terminello if he wanted to purchase more cocaine; he replied that he would buy another one-half gram. After completing her performance on the dance floor, she agreed to sell him one- half gram for $40. At her request, he placed $40 in her garter belt; shortly thereafter, she returned from the dressing room and handed Terminello a white zip-lock bag of white powder. This transaction took place in a relatively well- lighted area, with a clear line-of-sight to the dance stage and bar. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the powder revealed the presence of cocaine. (Testimony of Terminello; P-22.) Officer Mike Berk of the Broward County Sheriff's Office entered the premises (with Terminello) at approximately 12:30 a.m., on August 20, 1981. After sitting at a table near the dance stage, he asked a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as Robin" if he could buy some quaaludes; she handed him one white tablet. This exchange took place in a relatively well- lighted area of the bar. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablet revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Berk; P-23.) On August 29, 1981, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Beverage Sergeant George Miller entered the premises, sat at a table near the dance stage, and asked a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as "Jackie" if she could get him some quaaludes. She asked him to wait. Approximately an hour later, she indicated that she could obtain some quaaludes; she approached the bartender (employed by Licensee) known as "Rusty." He removed a tablet from his pocket, laid it on the bar, and cut it in half. He handed one-half of the tablet to Jackie who returned to the table and handed it to Miller. Subsequent laboratory analysis ,of the one-half tablet revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Miller; P-24.) On September 2, 1981, Sergeant Miller reentered the premises, sat at a table near the dance stage and was joined by a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as "Candy." From her seat, she shouted to Dusty, the bartender (who was approximately 10 feet away) : "Make some calls for some ludes, I want to get f cked up." (Testimony of Miller.) On September 10, 1981, at approximately 8:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Mike Imperial entered the premises, sat at the bar and asked Connie (a female dancer) if there were any "ludes" around. She replied that she didn't know but she would check. She then asked Jackie who, in turn, said she would check with "Ann," another female dancer employed by Licensee. Jackie then returned and said that no one had any quaaludes. Connie then told Imperial that she would be off-duty the next day but that she would leave six quaaludes for him with Tom, the bartender. She then told the bartender that she would leave something with him to give to Imperial (and his companion) the next day. (Testimony of Imperial.) The next day, September 11, 1981, at approximately 7:20 p.m., Officer Imperial reentered the premises and spoke with Tom, the bartender. Tom told him that Connie had not arrived yet, that he would check around the bar but that he doubted anyone had quaaludes because it was too early. Imperial then departed the premises. (Testimony of Imperial.) The next day, September 12, 1981, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Officer Imperial (accompanied by a confidential informant) returned to the premises. They sat at the bar, where Tom, the bartender, told them that the quaaludes were not then available but would be there soon. Shortly thereafter, Tom went to the rest room, then returned to the bar and handed Imperial ten white tablets wrapped in a bar napkin. Tom then handed the informant (who accompanied Imperial) a loose tablet and openly stated, "Here's one for the road." Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of methaqualone. (Testimony of Imperial; P-25.) On September 23, 1981, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Beverage Officer Imperial (with his confidential informant) reentered the premises, sat at the bar, and asked a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as "Gail" if there was any "pot" around. She replied that she would see if she could find him some; later, she returned and handed the confidential informant two cigarettes. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the cigarettes revealed the presence of cannabis. (Testimony of Imperial; P-26.) On September 28, 1981, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Officer Imperial reentered the premises and sat at the bar. He observed an unidentified female dancer (employed by Licensee) approach Tom, the bartender, and ask if he had a "joint." Tom replied that he had one, then removed a partially smoked cigarette from his wallet and handed it to the dancer. She placed it in her mouth and asked him for a light; he replied, "Don't do that here, I'm already on probation." The dancer then departed, saying that she would smoke it in the dressing room. Several patrons were nearby when this exchange took place. (Testimony of Imperial.) III. Open, Persistent, and Recurring Nature of Illicit Drug Activity on the Premises The illicit drug transactions described were open, persistent, and recurring; they took place in fairly well-lighted areas of the premises. The actions of Licensee's employees who engaged in such activities can fairly be described as practiced and routine. When undercover law enforcement officers asked for illicit drugs, the employees actively cooperated in an effort to accommodate them. The drug activity on the premises was not isolated or limited to one or two employees; it was pervasive during the evening hours, involving at least six different employees or agents. Drugs were either available on the premises or readily obtainable. During the course of the two-month investigation, at least ten illicit drug transactions took place on the premises. (Testimony of Terminello, Imperial, Berk, Miller.) However, no evidence was presented which established that, during the time in question, illicit drugs were actually used on the premises. Several customers testified that they had never seen anyone selling, buying, or using drugs on the premises, that no one had ever approached them attempting to buy or sell drugs. 2/ (Testimony of Leighton, Redgate, Johns, Smith, Bushmann.) George Sherman and Don Austin, owners and operators of the bar, testified that they had a policy against the use or sale of drugs on the premises; that they advised new employees of this policy, posted a sign in the dressing room restating the policy, 3/ and fired employees who violated it. However, the practiced and recurring nature of the drug transactions demonstrates that their anti-drug policy was not diligently and aggressively implemented. The drug transactions took place in a relaxed atmosphere of permissiveness. The employees made little effort to conceal the transactions; drug use was openly discussed and joked about. Neither George Sherman nor Don Austin were personally involved in any of the drug transactions in question. However, they failed to aggressively monitor and supervise their employees; they failed to effectively emphasize that drug activity on the premises would not be tolerated. Their lack of diligence in this regard allowed their employees to develop an attitude which fostered illicit drug activity on the premises. (Testimony of Sherman, Austin, Terminello, Berk, Miller, Imperial.) The open, persistent, and practiced nature of the drug transactions on the premises supports an inference that, if Austin and Sherman did not know that they were occurring, they should have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence. (Testimony of Terminello, Berk, Miller, Imperial.) During the 4 1/2 years it has operated the premises, the Licensee has not been found guilty of violating the beverage law or any other law of this State. (Testimony of Sherman, Austin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspend respondent's beverage license for 120 days. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 6th day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent, Larry Lyles, was the holder of Florida Beverage License No. 26-2105, license series 2ABS. The licensed premises to which this license was issued is Larry and Gail's Pool Hall, 306 West Eighth Street, Jacksonville, Florida. On August 11, 1982, Mr. Keith Bernard Hamilton, a beverage officer for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises pursuant to an assigned drug investigation. Officer Hamilton, after entering the licensed premises, purchased a beer from Gail Thomas a/k/a Patricia Ann Thomas. Gail Thomas was tending bar. After purchasing the beer, Officer Hamilton sat in a chair approximately 20 feet from the bar, and a few minutes later, approached a young man named Larry and asked about buying some smokes". "Smokes" is a term commonly used to refer to marijuana. Larry asked him how much he wanted and whether he had the money with him. Officer Hamilton stated he wanted two (2) bags and that he did have the money. Officer Hamilton then gave Larry $10 and Larry walked over to a young man named Hamp. Larry handed Hamp the $10 in currency and Hamp handed Larry two small manila envelopes. This exchange took place approximately five feet from the bar in the presence of Gail Thomas. Gail Thomas was one of the owners of the bar. The conversation between Officer Hamilton and Larry was in a normal tone of voice and could have been easily overheard by Gail Thomas and others in the bar. After receiving the two () manila envelopes from Hamp, Larry handed them to Officer Hamilton. Later, lab analysis revealed that these two envelopes contained cannabis, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On August 20, 1982, Officer Hamilton returned to the licensed premises. After entering, he purchased a beer from Gail Thomas and began playing pool. When Gail Thomas began cleaning a table near the pool table, he asked her if anyone had "smokes". She said no but that someone next door might. She then indicated she was going next door to get change. She left, and upon returning, she informed Officer Hamilton that a man next door had some "smokes". She then asked if he wanted her to get some for him. He said yes and gave her $20 in currency. She left and came back with two manila envelopes and two $5.00 bills as change. Later, lab analysis revealed that the two manila envelopes contained cannabis, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On August 21, 1982, Officer Hamilton again visited the licensed premises, and upon entering, purchased a grape soda from Gail Thomas. He saw the young man named Hamp shooting pool and walked over to him and asked him about purchasing some smokes. Hamp said he had some real good stuff and that if he didn't like it, he would buy it back. Officer Hamilton then purchased one manila envelope from Hemp. The exchange took place in the presence of Gail Thomas, who was nearby cleaning tables. After the exchange, Hemp suggested to Officer Hamilton that he try some of the material in the envelope there in the bar. Officer Hamilton declined and Hamp told him "It's okay, Gail doesn't care". Later, lab analysis revealed that the envelope purchased from Hemp contained cannabis, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. At the time of each of the purchases on August 11, 20, and 21, 1982, Gail Thomas was the only bartender or person actually working in the licensed premises. Officer Hamilton never observed another employee or person supervising or maintaining in any way the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Larry Lyles 306 West Eighth Street Jacksonville, Florida R. R. Caplano, Captain Division of Beverage Post Office Box 5787 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Executive Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about May 25, 1977, the Respondent licensed under the beverage laws and/its agent, servant, or employee, employed by salary or on a contractual basis to entertain, perform or work upon the licensed premises, to wit: Lisa Palov Clark, aka Di Di Bang Bang, did beg or solicit a customer or patron, to wit; Deputy Ernest Weaver, on the Respondent's licensed premises, to purchase a beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, for Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee or entertainer, contrary to Section 562.131(1) F.S. There was noticed for hearing a second count to the Notice to Show Cause which was not heard due to the motion to withdraw the count, made by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number One, doing business as Golden Dolphin, is the holder of license number 15-229, Series 2-COP, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license is for operation at a location at 6107 North Atlantic Avenue, CAPS Canaveral, Florida. The operative period of the license is from October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977. A copy of the license may be found as part of Petitioner's composite exhibit #1 admitted into evidence. On May 25, 1977, Lisa Palov Clark, also known as Di Di Bang Bang, was actively employed on the licensed premises, by the licensee. Ms. Clark's employment was as an entertainer, specifically a dancer. On the subject evening of May 25, 1977, Officer Ernest Weaver of the Brevard County, Florida Sheriff's Office, and Beverage Officer Eugene P. Fogle, entered the licensed premises around 9:00 p.m. and took seats in separate locations. They observed the floor shows being presented on the licensed premises, which shows were nude dancers and striptease. One of the dancers was Lisa Palov Clark. After completing her dance, Ms. Clark went to the dressing- room area of the licensed premises and then returned to the area occupied by the patrons. When she returned, she approached the table at which Officer Weaver was seated. She approached him without being requested by Officer Weaver either orally or by gesture. When she arrived at the table, she made the comment to Officer Weaver either to the effect "Can I have a drink?" or "Won't you let me order something?". Officer Weaver in his testimony at the hearing was uncertain of the exact statement made by Ms. Clark. Subsequent to the aforementioned comment, in whatever form it took, Ms. Clark stated that she felt hot and that her neck was wet. These comments were directed to Officer Weaver. During the course of this conversation, a waitress came and stood by the table at which Officer Weaver was seated. The waitress did not participate in the conversation between Ms. Clark and Officer Weaver. Officer Weaver, in response to Ms. Clark's comments, asked what she would like to drink, and Ms. Clark indicated that she would like champagne, one drink of which costs $2.75 and a pony bottle cost $6.00. The waitress then stated, "What will it be?" and Officer Weaver said, "Bring one of the $6.00 bottles." The waitress brought a bottle and at least one glass. The bottle was placed on the floor between Officer Weaver and Ms. Clark. The glass was positioned in the place at which Ms. Clark was seated and a drink was poured for her. Officer Weaver paid $6.00 plus a tip to the waitress. (There was some discussion about a possible second bottle which was purchased, but the recollection of witnesses was not sufficient to establish the existence of such a second bottle of champagne.) There was no testimony about the knowledge of the activities between Officer Weaver, Ms. Clark, and the waitress, from the point of view of any of the officers, directors, or owners of the licensed premises. Moreover, it was not established that any manager in charge of the licensed premises observed the interchange between Officer Weaver, Ms. Clark and the waitress. The facts as established, constitute a sufficient basis to show that the employee of the licensee, to wit, Lisa Palov Clark, employed on the licensed premises to entertain, perform or work, did beg or solicit a patron or customer on the licensed premises to purchase a beverage in violation of Section 562.131, F.S. However, even though the employee violated this law, the licensee was not culpable based upon any willful intent, negligence or lack of due diligence. See Trader Jon Inc. vs. State Beverage Department, 119 So.2d 735 (1st DCA 1960). Additionally, the testimony indicated that the licensee in the person of Milton Seidman had instructed the employee Ms. Clark not to solicit drinks. Finally, to penalize the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S., there must be a showing of more than an isolated incident as is the case here. See Taylor v. State Beverage Department, 194 So.2d 321 (2d DCA, 1967).
Recommendation It is recommended that the licensee, Golden Dolphin Number One, d/b/a Golden Dolphin, operating under licensee number 15-229, to do business at 6107 North Atlantic Avenue, CAPS Canaveral, Florida, be relieved of the necessity to make further answer to the Notice to Show Cause which is the subject of this hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Lawrence M. Litus, Esquire 231 East New Haven Melbourne, Florida 32901
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact 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
