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 The Hearing Officer finds the following facts: Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-957,2-COP and the licensed premises encompass the bar known as "The Harem". Sergeant Thomas R. Genest, a Jacksonville Police Officer, went in The Harem on November 1, 1974. Upon entering he saw Georgiann Smith and Annie Pearl Williams, both of whom worked as topless dancers in The Harem and were at that time dressed as topless dancers. At the time Sergeant Genest entered the bar Smith was dancing topless at the bar between the legs of a male patron simulating intercourse with the patron. Williams was similarly dancing topless between the legs of a male patron, simulating intercourse and allowing the patron to place his hands on her buttocks and thighs. Sergeant Genest had no independent recollection of Virginia Lou Roberts or any acts in which she might have been engaged on November 1, 1974, in The Harem. On March 6, 1975, Detective H. R. Hall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Vice Squad, was working The Harem undercover. While in The Harem he saw Maria Jenkins, Essie Mae Parks and Gaynell Moore, who were dressed as topless dancers and working as topless dancers in the bar. Jenkins was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron and rubbing her body against him as she danced. Parks was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron, who had his hands on her buttocks as she rubbed her vagina against his mid-section. Moore was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron who had his hands on her buttocks as she rubbed her vagina against his mid-section. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Georgiann Smith, Annie Pearl Williams, Maria Jenkins, Essie May Parks and Gaynell Moore were agents, servants or employees of the licensee.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent P R of Brevard County, Inc., doing business as Shark Lounge, was the holder of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License Series 4-COP No. 15-00177 for the Shark Lounge, located at 411 North Orange Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On March 15, 1984, Terry A. Altman, a special agent for the U.S. Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), in an undercover capacity and in the company of Investigator Gloria Smith of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), also in an undercover capacity, entered the Shark Lounge at approximately 2:00 a.m. They had been there before on March 12, 1984, when an employee of the Respondent, the bouncer Harry Haynes, had offered to sell marijuana to Smith. On this March 15th visit, they spoke with an employee by the name of Sherry, and Smith asked if Haynes was there. When Haynes showed up, Smith asked him if he had been able to obtain any of the marijuana he had mentioned previously, whereupon Haynes told her that cocaine was easier to get than marijuana. However, Haynes made some telephone calls and shortly thereafter requested that Altman come outside with him. Altman complied, at which time Haynes requested $30. Altman paid the $30 to Haynes and then went back inside the bar. A little later, Haynes came in and motioned Altman and Smith to come outside, where Haynes handed Altman a plastic envelope containing a green leafy substance. Upon subsequent laboratory analysis, this substance was determined to be marijuana. On March 22, 1984, Altman and Smith went back to Respondent's lounge, where Smith saw Haynes behind the bar. At this time, she asked Haynes if she could get cocaine, and Haynes indicated that he had already ordered some for her. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Haynes came in and told Altman to go outside with him. Haynes quoted a price of $50 a half gram for the substance. Altman paid Haynes the $50 and went back inside, while Haynes went someplace else. A few minutes later, Haynes came back into the bar and requested that Altman again come outside. When he did so, Haynes handed him a small plastic bag of a white powder, suspected to be cocaine, which Altman took back into the lounge and gave to Smith. Sitting at the table and making no effort to conceal her actions, Smith held the package up to the light, tapped the bag to get the substance to one corner, and then put it into her purse. Haynes at that time guaranteed the quality of the substance and offered to get them more in the future if they so desired. This substance was subsequently analyzed and determined to be cocaine. Thereafter, on March 24, 1984, Smith, in the company of undercover agent Jenkins, entered the lounge at about 9:30 p.m. She introduced Jenkins to Haynes and asked Haynes if he could get some cocaine for them. Haynes replied that he could do so but that his source would not be in until later in the evening. At approximately 3:30 the following morning, while Haynes was busy attempting to break up a fight which had just started, an individual identified as Haynes' source entered the bar, and Haynes pointed out Smith to him. This source, identified as Ric, came to Smith and gave her what was subsequently identified as cocaine in a plastic bag, for which she paid him $50. By this time, the lights, which had previously been turned out in an attempt to help stop the fight, were back on, and there was no attempt on the part of Ric to conceal the transaction. Later in the evening, Haynes asked Smith if she had been taken care of. Again, on April 8, 1984, Altman entered the Shark Lounge at approximately midnight. He approached Haynes, who was acting as a bouncer at the entrance, and asked to buy a half gram of cocaine. Haynes asked Altman to step outside and agreed to procure the cocaine for Altman if he would front the money for it. Altman paid Haynes $60 in cash at the Shark Lounge, and, pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the cocaine was subsequently delivered later that afternoon at the Canaveral Pier. The transfer of money from Altman to Haynes took place near the door in front of an independent security guard hired by Respondent. Haynes explained the transfer as being a payoff of a bet. On April 17, 1984, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Smith and Altman again entered the Shark Lounge and engaged Haynes in conversation, at which time Smith indicated that she wanted some more cocaine. Haynes replied he would get it, and Altman gave him $40 to purchase a half gram of cocaine. It was understood between them that Smith and Altman would be back the following evening to pick up the cocaine. When they did come back at approximately 11:45 p.m. on April 18, Haynes, who was out in the parking lot, motioned Altman to get into an Oldsmobile car, which Altman did. Haynes then removed the package of cocaine from the car's ashtray and attempted to give it to Altman, saying that it was good stuff. Altman, however, indicated that Smith had paid for it and that Haynes should give it directly to her. The two men then got out of the car and approached Smith, who was standing near the outside of the door to the lounge. Haynes attempted to give Smith the cocaine at that time, but she would not accept it and instead went into the lounge to use the restroom. As Haynes and Altman followed Smith into the lounge, Haynes pressed the cocaine onto Altman, indicating that he wanted to get rid of it. When Smith came back from the restroom a few moments later, Haynes told her he had already given the cocaine to Altman, who took it out of his pocket and put it in Smith's lap. She examined the cocaine and put it in her purse in full view of the other patrons of the bar. This substance, delivered by Haynes to Aliman and in turn to Smith, was subsequently identified as cocaine. Neither agent went back to the bar until April 26, 1984, at approximately 1:30 a.m., when Altman and Smith, in the company of Special Agent Eslinger of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), entered the bar. They contacted Haynes, who was working as a bartender at the time, and Smith asked him to get a half gram of cocaine for her. Haynes agreed to do this and told her to check with him the next day to see if he had procured it. At the time of her request, Smith gave Haynes $50 for the cocaine. No further contact was had until late in the evening of April 30, 1984, when Altman, Smith, and an unidentified confidential informant entered the lounge. Smith asked Haynes at that time if he had obtained the cocaine she had paid for on April 26, and Haynes said that he had. This conversation took place near the door, where Haynes was working as a bouncer. Haynes took a plastic envelope containing a white powder from his right front pocket and gave it to Smith, who brought it back to the table and showed it to Altman. Later, pursuant to Smith's invitation, Haynes came to their table and said that over the weekend he had obtained some sensinilla, some speed, and another substance. Smith said she would like to have some speed, and Haynes said he could get 30 capsules of it for $15, which she gave to him. At this point, Haynes showed Smith a package of a black substance which he identified as hashish and offered to sell to her for $5. Smith did not buy any, however, and she, Altman, and the informant departed the lounge after telling Haynes they would be back for the speed the next night. The white powdery substance that Smith obtained from Haynes that night was subsequently tested and found to be cocaine. When Smith went back to the lounge on May 4, 1984, at 11:00 p.m., this time with Eslinger alone, she contacted Haynes, who was working as the bouncer. Haynes told her he had the speed which she had paid for previously on April 30 and told them to go sit down. Shortly thereafter, Haynes motioned for Smith to come over to the door area, and, when she did so, he briefly stepped outside the lounge and then immediately came back. When he returned, Haynes put a package inside Smith's purse, which she saw and which he stated was only 25 capsules instead of the 30 she had paid for. At this point, Smith asked Haynes if she could pay him $50 in advance for a half gram of cocaine, which Eslinger would pick up the following day at the Canaveral Pier. When Haynes agreed, Smith gave him the $50 while they were inside the bar. Thereafter, she and Eslinger left. The capsules which Smith received from Haynes that night in the lounge did not contain amphetamines or any other determinable controlled substance. When Altman and Smith next returned to the bar on June 3, 1984, they found Haynes standing by the entrance. About a half hour after they went in, Smith asked Haynes if he had any cocaine and, when he replied in the affirmative, gave him $50 in advance for a half gram of cocaine. The arrangements made at that time were that the cocaine would be picked up on June Somewhat later, when Altman and Smith were leaving, Haynes told Smith not to leave yet, that his source was getting the cocaine out of his car. Altman and Smith waited, and a few minutes later Haynes came up to Smith at the bar and dropped into her purse a small plastic bag which contained a white powdery substance subsequently identified as cocaine. When Haynes dropped the bag into her purse, Smith took it out and examined it in plain view at the bar, which was well lighted, before putting it back into her right-hand pocket. Shortly thereafter, Altman and Smith left. The packages containing cocaine, which Smith held up to the light to examine, were approximately an inch and a half by an inch and a half in size. Although other employees were in the immediate area at the time that she held the packages up, and Altman does not know hew they could have avoided seeing what Smith was doing, Altman cannot say for sure that the employees did see it, nor can Smith. No other employees of the Respondent were involved in any of the drug deals except for Haynes. No other employees were in the immediate area when the sales were made. Neither Smith, Altman, nor Eslinger engaged in any discussion of drugs with any other employee of the bar on the numerous times they were in there. Smith contends that she first went into the bar on March 12, 1984, with Altman to pick up some drugs offered at another bar. She started talking to a male at her right and asked him if he knew where she could get some grass. This individual said yes and went to make a phone call. Later, he identified himself as Harry Haynes and said that he worked there as a bouncer but was not on duty on that particular night. The drugs were not delivered that night, either. On March 14, at 2:00 a.m., Altman and Smith again went into the lounge. Smith approached Sherry, the bartender, and asked for Haynes, who was not there. Smith told Sherry that Haynes was to get her some grass, and, in Smith's opinion, Sherry did not react to this disclosure at all. Sherry, on the other hand, denies any conversation with Smith about drugs. She indicated that Smith came to her frequently and asked for Haynes but never mentioned drugs in any capacity. Had Smith done so, Sherry states, she would have asked her to leave. This last comment stands to defeat Sherry's credibility, however. It is unlikely that the comment was made. It is also unlikely that an experienced bartender, as Sherry is, would react by asking a repeat patron to leave for mentioning that Haynes was to get marijuana. Sherry is the only one in the bar, except for Haynes, to whom Smith mentioned drugs, although she had a conversation about drugs with Haynes in front of Ric, who is apparently also a bouncer. When Smith asked about that, Haynes said that it was okay. There is a divergence of opinion regarding the reputation of the Shark Lounge as a source of drugs. Randy Arles, a Melbourne Beach police officer on loan to the Cocoa Beach Police Department Vice Squad since mid-March of 1984 and operating undercover, was contacted previously by a confidential informant who indicated there was cocaine traffic at the Shark Lounge. Based on that information, Arles and another officer went in to try to make a buy but were unsuccessful because, as it was explained to him, his identity as a police officer had been disclosed. Information reaching him from such street sources as confidential informants and prostitutes indicated that the Shark Lounge was known as a place to buy cocaine and that Haynes, the bouncer, was the seller. This latter information, however, is hearsay testimony and, with the exception of that relative to Haynes, cannot serve as the basis for a finding of fact. The identity of Haynes as the seller is corroborated by other independent admissible evidence, however. On the other hand, Officer Charles B. Autry, who has been with the Cocoa Beach Police Department for 14 years, has come into contact with the Shark Lounge and its owner on several occasions and has been inside the lounge four or five times. To his knowledge, it is a well-run establishment, and he has never in his 14 years been called there while on duty. The owner is very businesslike and very cooperative. He runs a tight ship and encourages the police to come inside both while on and off duty. In Officer Autry's opinion, considering today's morality, any place where crowds congregate has the potential for drugs, including the Shark Lounge, which he would not class as a nuisance. This opinion was also held by Major Gary Hummel, who has been with the Cocoa Beach Police Department for 14 years. He has been in the Shark Lounge on many occasions and knows the owner personally. He considers Mr. Autry to be an upright businessman who is not himself involved in drugs. The lounge in question here is one of only two lounges in Cocoa Beach that Hummel will patronize and take his wife. Both socially and professionally, he knows of no employees who sell drugs at the lounge, but the employees know he is a police officer, and this may have some bearing on their behavior in his presence. Hummel believes the owner is tough and knows that he will fire any employee for being drunk on duty. He also discharges employees for even the slightest infractions of rules. This bar is not a nuisance in his opinion but is a good clean place where many of the Cape workers go. These sentiments were reinforced by the proffered testimony of Officers William MacDonald and Al Otto of the Cocoa Beach Police Department, who both have been in the Shark Lounge frequently both socially and professionally. They have been encouraged to come in by the owner and find the lounge to be a clean, well-run, drug-free operation. Sharon LeVaugh (Sherry) has worked at the lounge as a bartender for six and a half years and runs the floor operation. Her immediate supervisor is the owner, Mr. Autry, who, to her knowledge, has a strict policy against drugs. Anyone using them, whether it be an employee or a patron, is immediately put out of the place. There is a low turnover of employees at the Shark Lounge, because it is a good place to work. During the six and a half years she has worked there, Sherry has never seen drugs used at the bar. She had no idea that Harry Haynes was dealing in drugs and doesn't think anyone else did. The Shark Lounge is dark inside like a normal lounge. The crowd which patronizes it is made up of regulars, both young and old, with repeat patronage common. A lot of business comes from Space Center employees, and police are encouraged to come in frequently. Friday and Saturday nights are quite busy, with 200 to 300 people in attendance. The bar offers live music seven nights a week, and the music is a noisy rock and roll band. Chad J. Milkint, the manager of the Shark Lounge, has worked there for a little over a year. Before that, he worked at another bar in the area for three years and has been in the lounge business both in Florida and outside the state for more than 11 years. When Milkint was hired, the owner was very clear about the "no drug policy," and he has followed it closely. He has, on occasion, thrown people out for being intoxicated either on drugs or alcohol. There is, he claims, a practical reason for this. If a patron is intoxicated, he is not buying drinks, and they are in business to sell drinks. Milkint did not know Haynes was using drugs or selling them. If he had, he would have fired him immediately. It was not at all unusual for Haynes to go outside as part of his job. In fact, Haynes' duties included a patrol of the outside area around the bar three or four times a night. Milkint admits he did no background check on Haynes except to check with his former employer, who gave Haynes a favorable recommendation. Haynes was a part-time employee who worked two or three days a week as a backup to the main barmen in addition to his duties as a bouncer. In a normal week, Haynes would work approximately 20 hours and had been employed sporadically by the bar for only five or six months. During the period of employment at the lounge, Haynes also worked at the Canaveral Pier. When Milkint checked with the beverage manager there, he was told that Haynes' performance was satisfactory. Milkint is frequently in the bar and observes what goes on. He denies ever seeing anyone check baggies by tapping or holding them up to the light, as described by Altman and Smith. He does not believe his employees saw that, either, because he feels that if they had seen it they would have reported it. The owner also supervises on a day-to-day basis, and in Milkint's opinion the operation is a good, ethical, well-run establishment. The employees are good, the entertainment is good, and the drinks are good and sold at fair prices. Milkint does not know how he could have prevented the sales by Haynes that took place there. Gary C. Autry, sole stock owner of the Shark Lounge, has owned the establishment for eight years. He used to work more in the bar than he does now, but a recent blood condition has developed that has made him curtail his activities. When Autry came down with this condition, he hired Milkint as a manager and an individual by the name of Mike Harris as an assistant. He has known both of them for years and knew both had previous lounge experience. When he hired them, Autry told them immediately that his policy was "no drugs whatsoever." Although he cannot spend as much time in the establishment as he used to, Autry is nonetheless there seven days a week and closely supervises his operation. His bouncers are trained to handle drugs and work with the police. Had Autry known Haynes was selling or using drugs, Haynes would have been dismissed immediately. When he hires employees, he asks them their habits. He believes that because of his policies his turnover of employees is as low as it is.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding and should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At no time material to the allegations was Respondent licensed or certified as a contractor of any type by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about June 2000, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement with Harold Knowles to construct a swimming pool at Mr. Knowles' residence located at 235 North Rosehill Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The contract price for the swimming pool was $18,650.00. Mr. Knowles paid directly to Respondent $9,400.00. Respondent performed some work on the pool project and then stopped work on the project. Respondent failed to return to Mr. Knowles any monies received for the project. The homeowner was forced to pay out-of-pocket expenses to have a second, licensed pool contractor finish the pool that Respondent left unfinished. These expenses total in excess of $24,000.00. Respondent acknowledges that he had no license. Respondent testified at hearing along with his wife. It was clear that Respondent was sorry for his actions. He was unaware of the gravity of his acts. He does not have any financial resources, and a significant fine will not benefit Mr. Knowles. A substantial fine adversely impact Respondent's family more than Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be fined $500.00, together with the investigation and prosecution costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Robert Footman 2702 Lake Mary Street Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Gail Scott-Hill, Esquire Lead Professions Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0771 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified pool contractor, holding license no. CP-C033753, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent's certified pool contractor's license qualified Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about May 19, 1986, Respondent, d/b/a Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. entered into a contract with Joseph and Joyce Malinoski for the construction of a swimming pool at 31 Sea Harbour Drive, Ormond Beach, Florida for a contract price of $9,737.75. The contract required a down payment of ten per cent (10 percent) of the contract amount ($973.78) which was paid by the Malinoskis on May 19, 1986. The Malinoskis resided in Massachusetts at the time they contracted for the swimming pool with Respondent and had contracted for the construction of a home in Ormond Beach, Florida to begin upon the pool shell being in place. The Malinsokis returned to Massachusetts upon execution of the contract expecting Respondent to commence work on the pool two weeks after he was notified by the builder that the survey was completed and the benchmark in place. On or before June 18, 1986, Respondent contacted the Malinoskis by phone to advise them that the pool was under construction, that Respondent was ready to start pouring concrete, and that he needed the next two (2) installments (20 percent due on day of excavation and 35 percent due on day of concrete shell installation) in the amount of $5,355.76. On or about June 18, 1986, the Malinoskis forwarded a cashier's check in the amount of $5,355.76 made payable to Respondent with the understanding from Respondent that the pool was under construction. On or about June 25, 1986, the Malinoskis were advised by their building contractor that the pool was not under construction. On or about July 5, 1986, the Malinoskis returned to Ormond Beach and found that the pool was not under construction. Although the business phone at Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. had been disconnected, the Malinoskis ultimately located the Respondent but were unable to resolve the problem until after a complaint had been filed. In early August, 1986, an agreement was reached with the Malinoskis, Respondent and David Larsen whereby Respondent would furnish the labor to build the pool, Larsen would pay the bills and the Malinoskis would pay the balance owed on the contract to Larsen and at end of construction Larsen would give the Malinoskis release of liens. The pool was constructed without the Malinoskis having to pay any additional money on the contract. The money used by Larsen to purchase materials above the amount paid to Larsen by the Malinoskis was repaid to Larsen by Respondent. Respondent supplied all the labor to construct the pool. The testimony of Respondent, which I find credible, was that the funds received by Respondent were frozen due to an Internal Revenue Service levy on the Respondent's business account which resulted in the IRS taking all the funds in the bank account, including the money from the Malinoskis. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent diverted the Malinoskis' funds or that the Respondent was unable to fulfill the terms of the contract. On or about November 15, 1985 Respondent, d/b/a Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. contracted with John and Louise McGowan for the construction of a swimming pool and spa at 1266 Robbin Drive, Port Orange, Florida for an original contract price of $11,500. These were 2 addendums to the original contract bringing the total contract price to $13,005.75. The contract provided for the spa to be 7 feet long by 5 feet wide with a depth ranging from 18 inches to 36 inches. As constructed, the spa was 5 feet long by 5 feet wide with a depth of 44 inches. The spa was also unlevel resulting in water spilling on to the deck rather than into the spillway to the pool. The therapy jets were located too deep in the spa to allow them to function properly. The spa has never been operational. Respondent was aware of the deficiencies in the construction of the spa but failed to correct them. The deck around the pool was not properly finished in that it is uneven and rough in several locations and is pitched toward the pool rather than away from the pool. The deck also has several facial cracks (not structural) which indicate a nonuniform thickness. As contracted, the pool was to have 3 return fittings of which only 2 were installed. The contract called for the installation of a heater by the Respondent. Although the heater was installed, it was improperly placed resulting in the inspector putting a "red tag" on the heater and having the gas company disconnect it. The McGowans have paid all but $575 of the contract price but refuse to pay the balance until corrections are completed. Respondent was aware of the deficiencies in the construction of the pool but failed to correct them. The evidence is clear that Respondent failed to properly supervise the construction of the McGowans' pool and spa, thereby resulting in poor workmanship in the construction of the pool and spa.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes and for such violation it is Recommended that the Board assess the respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's pool contracting license for a period of two (2) years, stay the suspension, and place Respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years, provided the Respondent pays the administrative fine of $500.00 within sixty days of the date of the Final Order. It is further Recommended that the charges of violating Section 489.129(1)(h) and (k), Florida Statutes be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At about 4:00 o'clock on the afternoon of May 8, 1979, petitioner's officers David William Shomers and Muriel Snipes Waldmann, entered respondent's place of business. At that time, Sherry Ann Armetto was behind the bar. When Officers Shomers and Waldmann asked Ms. Armetto for a meal she told them that the cook had not yet arrived. Officer Shomers and Officer Waldmann then each ordered a Scotch and soda, and both were served. At about 5:00 o'clock, the cook was still nowhere to he found. Officer Shomers counted the places available for people to sit down and eat, including seats in the bar, and determined that there were only 161 such places. Even though Ms. Armetto had worked for respondent as a bar tender for five or six months before the inspection on May 8, 1979, she had never been advised to refrain from selling alcoholic beverages when the kitchen was closed. She was so advised, however, after the events of May 8, 1979. Ricardo John Gutierrez had worked for the business four or four and one half years as of May of 1979. He was never told not to sell alcoholic beverages while meals were not sold. Petitioner initiated the present proceedings on or about July 3, 1979. In May of 1979, respondent Pete Rose Corporation held license number 16-790 SRX, an "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1970, THRU SEPTEMBER 30, 1979." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Respondent has not renewed the license since. As a condition of this beverage license, respondent was required to maintain at least 4,000 square feet, sufficient tables, chairs, china, other equipment and personnel to serve food to 200 persons, Officer Shomers testified.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause, thereby terminating these proceedings and allowing respondent's license to expire; and then cancel respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pete Rose Corporation d/b/a Fat Cats 2590 S. State Road 7 Miramar, Florida
