Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the regulatory agency charged with enforcing beverage and cigarette tax laws. As part of its duties, Petitioner investigate the sales of cigarettes to minors (under age persons). Respondent, Workman, Inc., d/b/a Coastal Mart, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 39-02924, series 1-APS, and retail tobacco products permit number 39-04440. Respondent's licensed premises is located at 9931 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Raymond Daoud is Respondent's sole stockholder and is a corporate officer. Pursuant to an anonymous complaint received by Petitioner during the spring of 1993, Special Agent Joseph A. Maggio directed investigative aide Kimberly Siebel to enter the premises of Coastal Mart and attempt to purchase cigarettes. Petitioner, during times material, utilized the services of investigative aides Kimberly Siebel and Stephanie Haley, whose birth dates are September 20, 1975, and January 24, 1978, respectively. Both aides were under the age of 18 during the spring of 1993. Investigative aides Siebel and Haley, are trained by Petitioner, when conducting investigations for the purchase of either beer or cigarettes, to enter premises and to truthfully tell their age when requested. They also provide proper identification to establish their age if requested to do so by the clerk when they are attempting to purchase beer or cigarettes. This procedure was used in this case by investigative aides Siebel and Haley when they purchased cigarettes from Respondent on May 20 and July 8, 1993. When investigative aide Siebel purchased cigarettes from Respondent on May 20, 1993, she had previously worked as an undercover operative for Petitioner approximately 30 times. On May 20, 1993, Siebel entered the premises of Respondent with Special Agent Maggio at approximately 9:25 p.m. Investigative aide Siebel approached the counter and ordered a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes from the clerk who was later identified as Angela Schulte, an employee of Respondent. Ms. Siebel received a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes as requested from Schulte without being asked for identification. She paid for the cigarettes and exited the store. Special Agent Maggio observed the purchase of cigarettes by Siebel from his position next in line behind her. When Siebel purchased the cigarettes from Schulte on May 20, 1993, she and Special Agent Maggio observed Respondent, Daoud, behind the counter when they entered the licensed premises. When Siebel and Maggio exited the premises, Siebel gave the cigarettes to Maggio. Maggio placed the cigarettes in a plastic bag and Siebel signed them. Maggio then sealed and placed them in the locked trunk of his vehicle until they were deposited in Petitioner's evidence file the following day. Approximately ten minutes after Siebel purchased the cigarettes and turned them over to Maggio, he reentered the premises, identified himself to Schulte, and advised her that she was under arrest for the sale of cigarettes to an under age person. Daoud was still inside the premises near the front counter. Special Agent Fisher, who is no longer employed by Petitioner, accompanied Special Agent Maggio inside the premises. Fisher completed a letter of warning and Daoud signed the warning. Fisher gave Daoud a copy of the warning as they left. On July 8, 1993, Maggio again directed investigative aide Stephanie Haley to enter Respondent's premises to attempt to purchase cigarettes. On July 8, 1993, investigative aide Haley was fifteen years old. Haley had on her person a Florida Drivers License showing her birthday to be January 24, 1978. On July 8, 1993, investigative aide Haley had previously acted as an undercover operative for Petitioner approximately 20 times. On July 8, 1993, Haley entered the premises of Respondent and approached the counter. She ordered a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes from the clerk, who was later identified as Raymond Daoud. Daoud asked Haley for identification whereupon she presented her Florida Drivers License. Daoud examined the license and completed the transaction. Haley exited the premises and turned over the cigarettes purchased to Special Agent Maggio. Special Agents Maggio and Bock witnessed the transaction from a vantage point outside the premises. Maggio and Special Agent Bock then entered the premises of Coastal Mart and Bock identified himself and placed Daoud under arrest for the sale of cigarettes to an underage person. Daoud complained that he had been "setup" and that he remembered the girl, "thought she was young," and asked her for identification. Daoud observed Haley's license and thought that it had eighteen years of age on it. Special Agent Bock reminded Daoud that the license did not have an age on it. Daoud insisted that he thought the license had the date 1979 which would, of course, make investigative aide Haley, fourteen when she was, in fact, fifteen at the time. Petitioner has a policy of not letting undercover operatives reenter premises to allow licensed vendors to review items from undercover operatives such as their identification cards, etc., so as not to jeopardize them in future operations and for their own personal safety. Petitioner explained to Respondent that he could examine the identifying card (license) either during the hearing or in court. Respondent suspended Schulte for one week without pay for selling cigarettes to a minor. Respondent also verbally warned Schulte for selling cigarettes to a minor and reminded her that it was against company policy to do so. Schulte recalled that Respondent was "extremely mad" about the incident. Respondent would not knowingly sell cigarettes or alcoholic beverages to a minor. Respondent has operated his business for approximately three years, and this is the first infraction that he has received for the sale of beer or cigarettes to a minor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-02924, series #1-APS, be assessed a $500.00 civil penalty for each count for a total civil penalty of $1,000.00. 1/ RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of April, 1994.
Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration based on the Notice to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against Rose L. Lee, who trades as Lee's Grocery. The exact details of the allegation are as found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order, which comments are hereby incorporated into the Findings of Fact. The Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is a division of an agency of State Government, namely, a part of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation. One of the functions which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco serves is to regulate those individuals who are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Rose L. Lee, who trades as Lee's Grocery in a location at 2210 Central Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, is a holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Petitioner. That license number is 39- 0292 and all times pertinent to these proceedings the Respondent held such license. On May 23, 1979, Officer Donald Clifford Levengood went to the licensed premises. Officer Levengood is an employes of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The purpose of Officer Levengood's visit was twofold. First, Officer Levengood was there to make a routine inspection of the licensed premises, as is authorized by the statutes which regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages. The second reason that Officer Levengood went to the licensed premises was based upon certain information that he had obtained from an informer, to the effect that cigarettes not bearing the proper Florida tax stamp were sold in the vicinity of the Respondent's licensed premises. The testimony did not reveal that the Respondent had sold that class of cigarettes from her store prior to the officer's inspection. When Officer Levengood arrived at the licensed premises, he spoke with the store manager, one Columbus Lee, the husband of the Respondent. Lee had been running the store as manager for a considerable period of time, to include the month of May, 1979. In keeping with a checklist Officer Levengood began to check items against that list and in that Process found a pack of Pall Mall cigarettes in the licensed premises in a location where the cigarettes were being offered for sale. Levengood noted that this particular pack did not show a Florida tax stamp and after removing this pack from its location he proceeded to remove a number of other packs, all of which were missing the necessary Florida tax stamp. All total, there were fifteen packs in this location which did not evidence the proper Florida tax stamp. Those items were removed from the licensed premises and placed in a bag and those packs and bag were admitted in the course of the hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Further inspection by the officer uncovered eight cartons of Pall Mall cigarettes and those cigarette containers did not carry the necessary Florida tax stamp. Those cartons were consolidated into a bag and became the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Admitted into evidence in the course of the hearing. (By agreement between the parties, the items of evidence were left in the custody and control of the District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco located in Tampa, Florida.) Columbus Lee, when questioned about the origins of those packs of cigarettes that were missing the Florida tax stamps, indicated that a couple of days before the inspection he had purchased ten cartons of Pall Mall cigarettes from persons who were vending these cigarettes from their car at a location across the street from the licensed premises. The number of total packs of cigarettes was ninety-five (95), which is less than fifty (50) cartons. The Respondent, Rose L. Lee, was not in attendance at the licensed premises on May 23, 1979, at the time that the employee of the Petitioner discovered the unstamped cigarettes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, Rosie L. Lee, be fined in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) and in the event that the Respondent fails to pay that fine within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order, that her license to sell alcoholic beverages be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rose L. Lee t/a Lee's Grocery 2204 Central Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative action and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The offense At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Rodi Enterprises Corporation d/b/a La Ferrolana Supermarket, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-00094, series 2-APS, for the premises located at 3380 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida. Rolando Nunez is an owner and president of the licensee. On July 22, 1994, Leonard Del Monte, an investigator employed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, entered the licensed premises to conduct a routine inspection. At that time, Inspector Del Monte discovered nine packages of Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's cigarettes in a display rack over the counter, each of which bore a fraudulent tax indicia and on which the excise tax had not been paid as required by law. Each cigarette package contained twenty individual cigarettes, and such packages, considering their location, were obviously offered for sale to the general public. Apart from the nine packages of untaxed Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's, Inspector Del Monte discovered no other untaxed cigarettes on the premises, which, at the time, contained approximately 300 other packages of cigarettes, as well as approximately 300 cartons of cigarettes, for sale to the general public. Indeed, this is the first occasion in over fifteen years of operation that respondent has ever been cited with a violation, and the first time Inspector Del Monte has ever discovered a violation in the fourteen or fifteen years he has been inspecting the premises. The reason for the offense Ovilio Reyes is a long-time customer of respondent, and purchased a carton of Benson & Hedges Menthol 100's from a vendor who sells, among other things, cigarettes from a lunch truck outside the factory where he works. Since he did not like the menthol taste, Mr. Reyes prevailed upon Mr. Nunez, an owner and president of petitioner, to exchange the nine packages that remained from the carton he had purchased for nine packages of Winston cigarettes. Mr. Nunez noted the stamp on the bottom of the packages, assumed it was valid, and agreed to the exchange. Thereafter, Mr. Nunez placed the packages in the display rack for resale. Having considered the proof, Mr. Nunez' testimony that he believed the packages to carry an appropriate stamp and that he had no intention of selling untaxed cigarettes is credited. Indeed, had Mr. Nunez thought the stamp was a forgery, it is doubtful that he would have placed them in the display rack so that the stamp was plainly visible to a customer or, in this case, an inspector standing at the counter. Moreover, for the untrained, a cursory glance at the stamp would not raise a suspicion as to its validity. It is only when one is apprised, as through the proof in this case, that a tax indicia must be stamped in purple ink as opposed to the black ink used on the subject packages, that the stamp was not affixed evenly on the bottom of each package as it should be, that the stamps used are slightly longer than the standard stamp, that the scallops or ornamental edge around the rectangular stamp did not match the scallop of a valid indicia, and that the subject packages, upon close inspection, contained the phrase "Tax No," as opposed to the proper phrase "Tax Paid," that one would have cause to suspect the legitimacy of the stamp in question. Notable, petitioner has not shown by rule or otherwise that it has advised its licensees in general or respondent in particular of the factors that should be considered in assessing the authenticity of a tax indicia.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the offense as charged, and directing respondent to pay a $50.00 civil penalty and the excise tax of $3.59. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 4th day of January 1995.
The Issue Whether respondent's law enforcement officer certificate should be revoked or suspended for alleged failure to maintain qualifications for certification, failure to maintain good moral character, and willful neglect of duty, incompetence, or gross misconduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges, respondent held a law enforcement certificate issued by the Commission, and was employed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Polk County Sheriff's Department. In December, 1979, Respondent -- while employed as a Deputy Sheriff -- purchased a $5.00 bag of marijuana from an individual identified as "Baldy." The purchase took place in the presence of others and occurred at Baldy's apartment located at 904 Center Avenue, Haines City, Florida. Respondent did not arrest Baldy for possession and sale of marijuana. Moreover, on at least one occasion during the same year, respondent smoked marijuana at Baldy's apartment in the presence of others. This finding is based on respondent's admissions to R. L. Stanley and Jerry Whitehead. Those admissions are corroborated by the hearsay statement made by John Butler, Jr. to investigator Robert Parnell, and by the results of a polygraph examination which respondent took on February 9, 1981. The examination was administered by an expert polygraph examiner. Moreover, respondent did not object to receiving the examination results into evidence. At hearing, respondent admitted using marijuana, but denied having purchased marijuana at Baldy's apartment in December, 1979. His denial is rejected as unworthy of belief. (Testimony of Stanley, Whitehead, respondent; P-1, P-2, P- 3) On February 9, 1981, respondent was involuntarily terminated as a Deputy Sheriff with the Polk County Sheriff's Department for conduct unbecoming an employee, i.e., the purchase and use of marijuana.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's law enforcement officer's certificate be suspended for one year, with reinstatement upon a showing of rehabilitation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1983.
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 10, 1978, the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, a wholesale dealer, handling, transporting or possessing cigarettes for sale or distribution within the State, failed to file with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco all reports on or before the tenth day of the month, contrary to Subsection 210.09(2), Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 10, 1978, the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, a wholesale dealer, handling, transporting or possessing cigarettes for sale or distribution within the State, failed to file with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco all reports on or before the tenth day of the month, contrary to Subsection 210.09(2), Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about October 10, 1978, the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, a wholesale dealer, handling, transporting or possessing cigarettes for sale or distribution within the State, failed to file with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco all reports on or before the tenth day of the month, contrary to Subsection 210.09(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against Brian H. Strickland, who trades as Smoke Rise Vending Service, located at 8454 Royalwood Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. The purpose of the Notice to Show Cause was for taking action against the permit No. 26-128 CWD, issued to the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, as permittee, by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The allegations contained in the Notice to Show Cause are these allegations as set forth in the issue statement of this Recommended Order. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties, by an oral stipulation, agreed that the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, no longer held the permit No. 26-128 CWD after October 31, 1978. In view of this fact, the threshold question arises concerning the jurisdiction of the Petitioner to take further action against the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, when in fact this Respondent no longer holds a permit issued by the Petitioner. Section 210.16, Florida Statutes, establishes the right of the Petitioner to take disciplinary action against permitees. The language of that provision states: "210.16 Revocation or suspension of permit.-- The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is given full power and authority upon sufficient cause appearing of the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter by any wholesale dealer receiving a permit to engage in business under this chapter to revoke the permit of such wholesale dealer. The division may suspend for a reasonable period of time, in its discretion, the permits of wholesale dealers issued under the provisions of this chapter for the same causes and under the same limitations as is authorized hereunder to revoke the permits of such wholesale dealers. No wholesale dealer whose permit for any place of business has been revoked shall engage in business under this chapter at such place of business after such revocation until a new permit is issued to him. No wholesale dealer whose permit for any place of business has been revoked shall be permitted to have said permit renewed, or to obtain an additional cigarette permit for any other place of busi- ness, for a period of 6 months after the date such revocation becomes final. In lieu of the suspension or revocation of permits, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco may impose civil penalties against holders of permits for violations of this chap- ter or rules or regulations relating thereto. No civil penalty so imposed shall exceed $1,000 for each offense, and all amounts collected shall be deposited with the State Treasurer to the credit of the General Revenue Fund. If the holder of the permit fails to pay the civil penalty, his permit shall be suspended for such period of tins as the division may specify. An analysis of these provisions leads to the conclusion that the Petitioner may not take action against a Respondent, unless that Respondent is currently the "holder" of a permit. Therefore, in view of the fact that Strickland's permit has not been effective since October 31, 1978, the Petitioner has no right to seek further action against the permit either in the form of revocation, suspension or fine.
Recommendation It is recommended that the case reported as Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, No. 27011-A, which has been filed against the Respondent, Brian H. Strickland, t/a Smoke Rise Vending Service, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian H. Strickland t/a Smoke Rise Vending Service 8454 Royalwood Drive Jacksonville, Florida J. M. Ogonowski Richard P. Daniel State Building, Suite 514 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent and his license, including suspension or revocation of the license, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent interfered with a DABT law enforcement sergeant who was inspecting his licensed premises, committed battery on the sergeant, and resisted arrest with violence.
Findings Of Fact Since June 27, 1990, the Respondent, Heck Prowse, has continuously held license number 23-11121, series 2-APS, issued by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That license authorizes him to sell alcoholic beverages on the business premises known as Five Boros Food Mart, Inc., located at 19817 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. At approximately 4:45 p.m. on July 1, 1990, Sergeant Carol Houston entered the licensed premises described above. Sergeant Houston's purpose for visiting the licensed premises was to inspect the premises for compliance with a new cigarette floor tax and to make sure that licensees were aware of the new tax. On that day Sergeant Houston was acting in her capacity as a sworn law enforcement officer of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and was in the course of performing her official duties as a sworn law enforcement officer. Upon entering the licensed premises described above, Sergeant Houston approached the Respondent, who was inside the licensed premises, identified herself to the Respondent, and explained to the Respondent her reason for being there. In the course of identifying herself to the Respondent, Sergeant Houston displayed to him her law enforcement credentials which contained both a photo identification card and a badge, both of which identified her as a law enforcement officer of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. At Sergeant Houston's request, the Respondent counted all of his visible cigarette inventory and reported a total of 176 packages of cigarettes. Based on her experience with similar size stores, Sergeant Houston was of the opinion that the reported inventory was unusually low, and she asked to see the Respondent's invoices for cigarette purchases. Shortly after the request for the invoices, the Respondent became very uncooperative. Along with trying to prevent Sergeant Houston from seeing the invoices, the Respondent began to speak to Sergeant Houston in a very vulgar and abusive manner. Once things had calmed down, Sergeant Houston again showed her credentials to the Respondent and explained to him that she was authorized by law to inspect everything in the premises. Eventually the Respondent provided the invoices. After reviewing the invoices, Sergeant Houston asked if there were any more cigarettes on the licensed premises. The Respondent replied that there were not. Thereupon, Sergeant Houston began to inspect storage cabinets on the licensed premises, but was unable to inspect one cabinet because the Respondent was standing in front of it blocking access to the cabinet. Once again the Respondent became angry and spoke to Sergeant Houston in a very vulgar and abusive manner. Sergeant Houston eventually prevailed upon the Respondent to move out of the way. Inside the cabinet that had been blocked by the Respondent, Sergeant Houston found approximately 40 additional cartons of cigarettes. At that point Sergeant Houston orally advised the Respondent that he was under arrest for interfering with the performance of her official duties. Sergeant Houston then told the Respondent to sit down, which he did, and to provide identification, which the Respondent refused to do. Sergeant Houston then proceeded to call her office to report the situation and while she was talking on the telephone the Respondent attempted to leave the premises. Sergeant Houston dropped the telephone, chased after the Respondent, and put an arm around his neck to keep him from leaving the building. The Respondent thereupon shoved and hit Sergeant Houston several times, including hitting her in the chest with his fist, in an effort to get away. Once Sergeant Houston succeeded in restraining the Respondent, she returned to the telephone and advised her supervisor of her location. The supervisor, who had heard the struggle over the telephone, was concerned for Sergeant Houston's safety. The supervisor called the Metro Dade Police and asked them to send assistance to Sergeant Houston, which they did. In cases involving battery on a law enforcement officer, obstruction of a law enforcement officer, or resisting arrest with violence, if the violation is committed by the licensee, it is the established policy of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to revoke the license. The sale of cigarettes, beer, and wine account for more than half of the sales volume at the Respondent's store on the licensed premises. Revocation of the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license would have a devastating impact on the economic viability of the Respondent's business.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order in this case finding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in the first three counts of the Amended Notice To Show Cause and concluding that the appropriate penalty is the revocation of Respondent's license number 23-11121, series 2-APS, for the premises located at 19817 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of March 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March 1992.
The Issue Whether, pursuant to section 210.30, Florida Statutes (2016),2/ Petitioner, Jemco Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Payless Tobacco Source (“Jemco”), owes a tax deficiency in the amount of $5,582.73 for the audit period from July 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016, plus $558.27 in penalties and $144.43 in interest, for a total amount due of $6,285.43.
Findings Of Fact Jemco is a Florida corporation that is a distributor of tobacco products in Florida, pursuant to Wholesale License No. WDE1614464. The Division is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 210, related to the taxation of tobacco products. It is undisputed that Jemco is a distributor of tobacco products in Florida, and that it engaged in the distribution of tobacco products during the period of July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. It also is undisputed that Jemco was engaged in the distribution of tobacco products, on which it paid an applicable excise tax and surcharge, before July 1, 2016. As discussed in greater detail below, pursuant to section 210.30, an excise tax is imposed on all tobacco products and on any person engaged in business as a distributor in Florida at the rate of 25 percent of the wholesale sales price of such tobacco products. This excise tax is due to be paid during the month in which the licensed distributor purchases the tobacco products and brings them in state for sale in Florida. Additionally, pursuant to section 210.276, a surcharge is imposed on all tobacco products and on any person engaged in business as a distributor in Florida at the rate of 60 percent of the wholesale sales price of such tobacco products. This surcharge is due to be paid during the month in which the licensed distributor purchases the tobacco products and brings them in state for sale in Florida. In 2016, the Florida Legislature amended the definition of “wholesale sales price” in chapter 210. This amendment, which went into effect on July 1, 2016, changed the assessment of the excise tax and surcharge on the distribution of tobacco products. At some point——and the evidence does not establish when——the Division posted notice of this statutory amendment to the definition of “wholesale sales price” on its website. However, it did not notify distributors, including Jemco, by regular or electronic mail. Consequently, Jemco was unaware of this change in the law. On or about February 16, 2017, Alicia Cortez, an auditor employed by the Division, conducted a tax audit on Jemco for the audit period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016. In conducting the audit, Cortez reviewed copies of out-of-state supplier invoices for tobacco products sold by the out-of-state suppliers to Jemco. These documents showed the total amount of the sales of tobacco products by out-of-state suppliers to Jemco. She verified these purchases by reviewing Jemco's bank statements. Cortez also reviewed the In-State Tobacco Products Wholesale Dealer's Reports (“Monthly Report”) submitted by Jemco to the Division on a monthly basis. These Monthly Reports, which are submitted in electronic format, show the net taxable purchases, excise tax amount, surcharge amount, and total amount——which consists of the excise tax and surcharge——due for that particular month, as calculated by Jemco. The Monthly Reports also show the amount of excise tax and surcharge paid by Jemco for purchases of tobacco products from out-of-state suppliers for that month. Cortez compared the total amount of taxable purchases of tobacco products, as determined by a review of the out-of- state supplier invoices, with the taxable purchases and excise tax and surcharge paid by Jemco for the particular month, as reported in its Monthly Reports. Here, the audit showed that Jemco did pay some excise tax and surcharge for the period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016, but that it also had a tax deficiency of $5,583.73 for failure to pay the full amount of the excise tax and surcharge due during the audit period. With the imposition of $144.43 in interest and a penalty of $558.27, Jemco was determined to owe a total of $6,285.43. At Jemco's request, an audit conference between the Division and Jemco was conducted on June 19, 2017. The conference did not result in any change to the total amount of excise tax, surcharge, penalty, and interest that Jemco was determined to owe. As more fully discussed below, pursuant to section 120.80(14), which governs taxpayer contest proceedings under chapter 210, the Division has the initial burden in this proceeding to demonstrate the factual and legal grounds for the tax assessment. Once the Division makes that showing, the entity contesting the assessment——here, Jemco——has the burden to show the assessment was incorrect. Jemco contends that it did not intentionally try to evade paying its taxes due for the audit period, and asserts two grounds for disputing the assessed amount of $6,285.43. First, Jemco contends that, in addition to the period between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2016, the audit also covered the months of May and June 2016. However, all of the documentary evidence admitted into the record of this proceeding, including the supplier invoices, Monthly Records, audit report, and auditor's summary sheet clearly shows that the Division audited only the period consisting of July 1, 2016, through October 31, 2016. The evidence shows that the Division purposely chose to audit only this four-month period, rather than a typical six-month audit period, specifically because the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” went into effect on July 1, 2016, and the Division decided to “have a clean cut off” in conducting audits. The evidence clearly and uniformly refutes Jemco's argument that the audit actually covered a six-month period, from May 1, 2016, to October 31, 2016.3/ Jemco also asserts that it should not be held liable for the tax deficiency for the audit period because it was unaware of the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” that went into effect on July 1, 2016. It characterizes the Division's assessment of tax deficiency, penalties, and interest based on the 2016 amendment to that definition as a “got-you attack.” The undersigned finds the testimony of Solis and Hershewsky credible and sympathetic that Jemco never intended to avoid paying the excise taxes and surcharges that it owed under the law, and that Jemco only found out that it was not paying the correct amount of taxes and surcharge for the audit period when the audit commenced in early 2017. It is understandable that a small business like Jemco could be caught unaware of a change in the law——particularly when it was not directly notified by regular or electronic mail of the changed law. However, as a wholesale distributor licensee subject to chapter 210, Jemco is nonetheless presumed to be aware of, and required to follow, this statute in accurately paying its excise taxes and surcharges. To that point, Florida case law states that “[a]s to notice, publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions.” L & L Docs, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Bevs. & Tobacco, 882 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(quoting State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla. 1991)). Thus, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Davis v. Strople, 158 Fla. 614, 29 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1947). Here, after the Legislature amended the definition of “wholesale sales price” in 2016, this amended definition was published as part of chapter 2016-220, Laws of Florida, and also as subsection 210.25(14), in the 2016 version of Florida Statutes, which remains in effect to date.4/ Under Florida law, Jemco, as a regulated licensed wholesale distributor of tobacco products, is responsible for being aware of, and complying with, the applicable law——here, the amended definition of “wholesale sales price” that went into effect on July 1, 2016. Nevertheless, it is noted that had the Division directly——by electronic mail or regular mail——informed wholesale distributors of tobacco products of the changed definition of “wholesale sales price” after it was enacted by the Legislature during the 2016 Legislative Session and before it went into effect on July 1, 2016, Jemco——and, presumably other distributors of wholesale tobacco products, some of which are small businesses——would have been informed of the change, so may not have incurred a tax deficiency, with accompanying penalty and interest. This is mentioned for the Division's consideration in informing licensees of significant future changes in the law that could affect their liability for tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest. Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined that the Division met its burden, pursuant to section 120.80(14)(b), to establish the factual and legal grounds on which the assessment of $6,285.43 was made. It is further determined that Jemco did not meet its burden under section 120.80(14)(b) to show that the assessment was incorrect. The clear and convincing evidence supports the Division's imposition of the proposed penalty and interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order imposing an excise tax and surcharge assessment of $6,285.43 on Jemco. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2019.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for alleged multiple violations of the Beverage Law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Howard M. Rasmussen, Department of Business Regulation Director 725 South Bronough Street Division of Alcoholic Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Aaron A. Green, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 410 S.E. 4th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32602 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues presented for resolution in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensure should be subjected to disciplinary sanctions because of alleged misconduct involving the sale and use of controlled substances on a licensed premises, more specifically delineated in the Notice to Show Cause filed in this proceeding by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, JIMMIE WILLIAMS, owns the club or tavern known as the "Copa Cabana", doing business at 2901 North Haynes Street, Pensacola, Florida. That establishment holds a Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 27- 00239, authorizing the sale of beer and wine on the premises. The Respondent is the sole owner of the Copa Cabana. Burnett Patterson, at times pertinent hereto, during September 1988 through February 1989, was a patrol deputy with the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Department. While a deputy with that Department, he engaged in special drug investigations. During the course of this employment, he became involved in numerous undercover operations designed to curb traffic and use of controlled substances. He thus became familiar with the appearance, properties and paraphernalia associated with crack cocaine and marijuana. On September 2, 1988, he met with Law Enforcement Investigator, Paul Blackmon, of the DABT. Investigator Blackmon asked Deputy Patterson to assist in a drug investigation of the Copa Cabana. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on that date, Deputy Patterson entered the Copa Cabana licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While in the licensed premises, inside the Copa Cabana, he observed patrons of that establishment openly smoking marijuana and crack cocaine. He observed one black male patron walking around inside the licensed premises holding a piece of crack cocaine visibly in his front teeth in order to advertise it for sale. This activity was done in the presence of the licensee/Respondent, Jimmie Williams. The undercover agent further observed numerous persons selling marijuana and cocaine inside, as well as outside the licensed premises. These persons made no attempt to conceal their illegal actions. It has not been demonstrated who owned or controlled the grounds immediately outside the door of the licensed premises. On September 16, 1988, at approximately 8:15 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premised in an undercover capacity. Upon entering the licensed premises, he observed 15 to 20 patrons inside and observed the Respondent working at the bar. Deputy Patterson went to the restroom inside the Copa Cabana and observed two black males cutting crack cocaine into small pieces, mixing them with marijuana, and rolling the resulting material into cigarettes or "joints" for smoking. Deputy Patterson purchased one piece of crack cocaine for $20.00 from a patron known as William Barker while inside the restroom. While inside the licensed premises, Deputy Patterson observed patrons openly smoking crack cocaine and marijuana. He was approached by other patrons, who asked if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. The substance purchased was analyzed and tested positive for cocaine. On September 19, 1988, at approximately 7:40 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Upon entering, he made contact with patron, Jerry Green, who was accompanied by a patron known as "Killer." Deputy Patterson purchased one "baggie" of marijuana for $10.00 from "Killer." This transaction, along with the open smoking of marijuana, took place in the presence of the Respondent. Deputy Patterson also observed numerous controlled substance transactions taking place outside and near the entrance of the licensed premises. The substance he purchased was analyzed and proved to be marijuana. On September 24, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the license's premises. He observed several patrons entering and exiting the restroom area. He entered the restroom and made contact with patron, John Butler. John Butler asked Deputy Patterson what he was looking for, and the Deputy replied "crack." Deputy Patterson was sold one piece of crack cocaine by John Butler and another unknown patron for $20.00. Deputy Patterson observed several patrons entering the restroom and purchasing crack cocaine. Jimmie Williams was inside the licensed premises during the time Deputy Patterson was present and making these observations. Deputy Patterson further observed several narcotic transactions outside the front entrance of the licensed premised. The substance purchased by Deputy Patterson was analyzed and tested as positive for the presence of cocaine. On October 8, 1988, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Prior to entering, he was asked by several patrons loitering near the entrance of the Copa Cabana if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. Once inside the licensed premises, he entered the restroom, where he made contact with patron, Calvin Black. Deputy Patterson purchased one piece of crack cocaine from Calvin Black for $20.00. Deputy Patterson then departed the restroom and observed patrons openly smoking marijuana while playing pool. Deputy Patterson contacted patron, Terry Boutwell, by the pool table. Terry Boutwell sold Deputy Patterson one baggie of marijuana for $10.00 at that location. Upon leaving the building, Deputy Patterson was again approached by persons outside the entrance to the Copa Cabana and asked if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. During all of the aforementioned events, including the sale of marijuana and the smoking of marijuana in the vicinity of the pool table, the Respondent was inside the licensed premises. Both the substance purchased from Calvin Black and that purchased from' Terry Boutwell were subsequently analyzed and proved to be controlled substances. On January 28, 1989, at approximately 5:00 p.m, a confidential informant, Alonzo Blackman, was designated to conduct a controlled substance purchase inside the licensed premises from the licensee, Jimmie Williams. The confidential informant was given specific instructions to buy only from Williams. Prior to departing the Sheriff's Department, he was thoroughly searched. It was determined that he had no controlled substances or money on his person. He was provided with a concealed, wireless voice transmitter. He was also given $50.00 of the Sheriff's Department's money for the purpose of purchasing crack cocaine. Subsequently, the confidential informant departed the Sheriff's Department with Deputy Gwen Salter. The pair was followed and traced by Escambia County Sheriff's Deputy Mark Shaeffer. Deputy Shaeffer was equipped with a radio receiver and monitored transmissions emitted from Alonzo Blackman's transmitter. Deputy Shaeffer observed Alonzo Blackman park behind the Copa Cabana to the rear of the building on a back street and depart Deputy Salter's vehicle. He observed Alonzo Blackman walk through the wooded area behind the Copa Cabana and disappear around the side of the building, moving toward the front of the Copa Cabana building. After Alonzo Blackman was out of sight around the corner of the Copa Cabana building, Deputy Shaeffer could hear normal outdoor sounds, as well as Alonzo Blackman's footsteps through the transmitter. Shortly thereafter, he heard the sound of a juke box playing and loud voices consistent with the noises one would expect when a person entered a bar. Within two or three minutes thereafter, Deputy Schaeffer observed Alonzo Blackman come back in sight around the corner of the licensed premises and enter Deputy Salter's vehicle. Deputy Schaeffer followed the two back to the Sheriff's Department, keeping Alonzo Blackman in visual sight the entire time. When Alonzo Blackman and Deputy Salter returned to the Sheriff's Department, Alonzo Blackman presented Deputy Schaeffer with a slab of rock cocaine and no longer had the $50.00 given to him by the Sheriff's Department. Subsequently, the substance purchased was analyzed and tested positive for the presence of cocaine. The Petitioner adduced a hearsay statement from Deputy Schaeffer to the effect that Alonzo Blackman had told him that he had purchased the rock cocaine in question from the Respondent. That statement was not admitted into evidence since it was not corroborative hearsay for the purposes of Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. The hearsay statement concerning the alleged purchase from the Respondent is not corroborative of the testimony concerning the other independent events in question in this proceeding involving the sale and use of controlled substances on the licensed premises by others. The only testimony or evidence directly concerning the alleged purchase of cocaine from the Respondent was that related by confidential informant, Blackman, to Deputy Schaeffer. The only other evidence purporting to show that the Respondent sold a slab of rock cocaine was the testimony by Deputy Schaeffer revealing what he saw and heard over his radio receiver. All he saw was Alonzo Blackman passing around the side of the building aid later returning around the back corner of the building. He heard his footsteps as he passed around and presumably entered the building, judging from the change in sounds received. There was no evidence that any voices or other noises transmitted to Deputy Schaeffer's listening station consisted of the actual drug transaction and specifically that any of the voices or sounds he might have heard were those of the Respondent in conducting that transaction. Since Deputy Schaeffer's testimony, itself, does not implicate the Respondent in selling the drug, the hearsay statement of the confidential informant, Alonzo Blackman, who could not be located at the time of the hearing, cannot be admissible corroborative hearsay. Thus, it was not established that on this occasion, the slab of rock cocaine was actually purchased from the Respondent. On February 8, 1989, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Alonzo Blackman was again designated to conduct a controlled substance purchase inside the Copa Cabana from the Respondent. He was given the same specific instructions, and Deputy Schaeffer made the same visual and auditory observations as he had with regard to the alleged transaction of January 28, 989. The same factual findings apply, and are made, with regard to this transaction as were made above concerning the January 28, 1989 transaction. The alleged fact that the purchase was made from Jimmie Williams was again predicated on the hearsay statement of Blackman, which was not corroborative and was uncorroborated. It cannot be used to support a finding that the Respondent sold the cocaine in question. On February 7, 1989, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Escambia County Investigators, Tyron Wicks, Melvin Possey and J. Johnson, conducted a "routine drug sweep" of the Copa Cabana. This type of operation was a routine matter for Investigator Wicks in the six months prior to February 7, 1989. Upon entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wicks went directly to the men's restroom where he observed four patrons having a conversation while looking into a paper bag. Investigator Wicks seized the paper bag which contained nine plastic baggies of marijuana ready for distribution and charged him with possession of 20 grams of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Investigator Wicks is familiar with the smell of marijuana smoke; and during "drug sweeps" conducted in the licensed premises, estimated to be 20 or 30 such operations for the previous six months, he smelled such smoke in the licensed premises on a number of occasions. On these occasions, he had also found marijuana and crack and razor blades, as well as pipes and cans used for smoking crack, on the floor of the licensed premises. He has seen people buy drugs at the Copa Cabana while he has been present there with the Sheriff's Department Narcotics Unit during the years 1988 and 1989. Sergeant Bobby Jackson of the Narcotics Division of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department has bean a law enforcement officer for approximately 14 years. He is familiar with the smell and appearance of marijuana and crack cocaine. He has been involved in 20 to 30 raids at the licensed premises. On at least 15 occasions, officers in his party have found controlled substances. The Respondent was always present when these raids took place. On many of the raids, Sergeant Jackson smelled the odor of marijuana smoke in the licensed premises. He is certain that the Respondent was present on these occasions. During these raids, he has observed marijuana cigarette butts on the floor of the licensed premises and has often found people inside bagging marijuana. Prior to the suspension of the beverage license on February 10, 1989, Sergeant Jackson received quite a few complaints about the licensed premises; and each time he visited it, he would observe a great number of people standing around inside and outside the licensed premises. It has been quite different since the suspension of the license and the shutdown of operations at the Copa Cabana. Sergeant Jackson has received very few complaints since February 10, 1989. Sergeant Jackson, however, never received any complaints from the Respondent about drug use in the establishment. John Green is a black male, whose mother lives approximately a block from the licensed premises. He has been a friend of the Respondent for approximately 15 years. During the period of January and February of 1989, he patronized the licensed premises six days a week, every week. He would go there after work and stay until approximately 9:00 p.m. He states that he always saw the Respondent behind the bar. John Green stated that the bar was a self- service bar where patrons could get beer out of the cooler in front of the bar and pay for it at the counter. He maintained that he had never seen Deputy Patterson and that, in his opinion, marijuana smoke smells just like Kool cigarette smoke. He drinks beer every night, including the times when he patronized the Copa Cabana. He testified under oath that he had never seen anyone use drugs in the licensed premises and that on one occasion, however, he had thrown someone out of the licensed premises for using drugs. Dorothy Mouton lives approximately six miles from the Copa Cabana and works at Washington Junior High School in an administrative capacity. She knows the Respondent, who also works there as a coach. She, in the past, has stopped at the Copa Cabana to eat a snack and converse the During the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989, she went to the Copa Cabana every week. According to Ms. Mouton, the Respondent had a stool behind the bar and would get beer from the cooler for patrons who requested beer. She claimed that she was able, by her experience, to identify marijuana smoke and crack cocaine. She maintained that she never saw any drug of either sort in the licensed premises She also testified that it was her habit to depart the licensed premises every day between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Chris Dortch is a 27 year old black male who has known the Respondent for a long period of time. He helped the Respondent operate the Copa Cabana when he first established it. He lives approximately four blocks from the Copa Cabana. He goes to the licensed premises every day and sometimes stays until it closes. He has always observed the Respondent staying behind the bar counter while he is on duty. This witness also claimed under oath that he had never seen any cocaine or marijuana smoked in the licensed premises and had never smelled any marijuana smoke within the licensed premises. He testified that he saw police officers in the licensed premises at least ten times, but never observed any arrests. Elizabeth Freeman lives around the corner from the licensed premises and has lived there approximately four years. During the period of September of 1988 to February 10, 1989, she went to the club every day for about an hour where she would talk to Williams and play video games. She claimed that she observed Williams, on occasion, move from behind the counter into the public area of the tavern. She also testified that she has never seen any indications of drug use on the premises. Shirley Washington was in the habit of going to the club during the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989 at approximately 4:30 p.m. and generally would stay until closing, usually around 9:00 p.m. She was a member of a social group called "The Copa Cabana Queens." It was her habit, during this period of time, to drink four to five six-packs of beer each day. She is familiar with the smell of crack cocaine smoke and marijuana smoke. She testified that she had never observed any marijuana or crack cocaine within the licensed premises. She has been a friend of the Respondent for approximately 25 years. The Respondent is an instructor and coach with the Escambia County School Board. He has owned the Copa Cabana for 15 years. It is a recreation center, lounge, notion store and meeting place. He also has live entertainment and occasionally, a fashion show. His license authorizes him to sell and serve beer and wine. He is the only employee, but Ms. Washington minds the bar for him when he is temporarily away from it (in the restroom, etc.). He testified that he never observed Deputy Patterson until the day of the hearing. He testified that no drugs had ever been in the licensed premises and that he had never dealt in drugs. The testimony of Deputies Patterson and Schaeffer, Investigator Wicks, Sergeant Jackson, and Law Enforcement Investigator Ralph Kelly, to the effect that controlled substances were openly and notoriously used and sold on the premises in question, conflicts in a general sense with the testimony of Respondent's witnesses to the effect that they never saw any marijuana or crack cocaine on the premises or smelled any and so forth. This conflict in the testimony of the witnesses of the Petitioner and Respondent must be resolved by determining which are more credible. Determining the credibility of witnesses is an important and exclusive task of the fact finder Guidelines for resolving credibility issues are provided in Volume 24, Florida Jurisprudence 2nd, Sections 688-696, and grand jury instruction 2.04 on page 779 of West's Florida Criminal Laws and Rules (1989), which sets forth areas to consider in determining whether a witness is credible. Those areas include: whether the witness had an opportunity to observe and know the things about which he testifies' whether his memory seemed accurate; whether he was straight forward in his answers; whether he was interested in the result of the case at issue; whether it is consistent with other testimony and evidence adduced; and whether he has, at some different time, made an inconsistent statement from the testimony given before the court. Firstly, concerning the testimony of John Green, it can be seen that he testified to having patronized the establishment during the period of January and February of 1989 and purported never to have seen Deputy Patterson. This is not surprising since there was no testimony by the Deputy that he was in the licensed premises during those two months. Therefore, John Green would have had no opportunity to observe Deputy Patterson at the time he frequented the licensed the premises. John Green also testified that he drank beer in the licensed premises every night and, thus, could quite likely have suffered a diminution of his powers of observation as a result of drinking beer. Dorothy Mouton maintained that she went to the Copa Cabana every week during the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989. She stated that she went there between the time she got off work until 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Her time in the licensed premises was, therefore, very limited; and everything alleged by the Petitioner's witnesses could easily have occurred without her being on the licensed premises to observe the alleged violations. Elizabeth Freeman stated that she went to the Copa Cabana for about an hour each day during the time alleged in the Notice to Show Cause. If her testimony that she saw no drugs used on the licensed premises is accepted as true that still does not resolve the problem that the amount of time that she spent on the licensed premises was quite limited. The violations testified to by the Petitioner's witnesses could have occurred during her absence from the licensed premises. Shirley Washington claimed that she was at the Copa Cabana every day from 4:30 p.m. to approximately 9:00 p.m. during the time pertinent to the charges in the Notice to Show Cause. She also testified that she would drink four to five six-packs of beer every day. That could easily diminish her powers of observation and, no doubt, did. None of the witnesses for the Respondent could describe the events of any particular day alleged in the Notice to Show Cause. Their testimony was rather of a very general nature and not date or time-specific. On the other hand, the Petitioner's witnesses were trained law enforcement officers and observers, who kept meticulous records of their participation in the events in question and who gave detailed testimony as to the time, date and circumstances of each event that took place on the licensed premises and later became the subject of the charges in the Notice to Show Cause. There is no evidence that any of the law enforcement officers were drinking or otherwise had impaired powers of observation during the pertinent times. The Respondent's witnesses' memories and resulting testimonies appeared very general at best. Concerning the issue of whether the witnesses might have some interest in how the case should be resolved, it should be pointed out that the Respondent's witnesses were all old friends of the Respondent. John Green has been a friend of the Respondent for 15 years. Dorothy Mouton is a co-worker of the Respondent's at Washington Junior High School and must be counted as a friend of the Respondent. Chris Dortch has apparently known the Respondent since he was a small child. Elizabeth Freeman has been his friend and customer for the past four years. Shirley Washington has been the Respondent's friend for 25 years. All of these people are not only friends of the Respondent, but apparently considered the Copa Cabana a sort of favorite resort or meeting place away from home and clearly wanted to continue the benefit of the close friendly relationship. The Petitioner's witnesses, on the other hand, were professional police officers, none of whom had any relationship with the Respondent or the Copa Cabana. There was no evidence that any of the officers were somehow targeting the Respondent for special prosecution efforts. It rather appears that the events which came to light, as described in their testimony and the Notice to Show Cause, were discovered through routine police operations. Further, Deputy Patterson testified concerning the issue of whether the Respondent exhibited proper diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance over the licensed premises. He stated that when the Respondent sold' a beer, he would do so by receiving the money for the beer and then moving outside of the bar to the cooler, kept in the room near the bar, to obtain the beer and give it to the customer. The Respondent's witnesses, however, addressed this matter with differing testimony. John Green, stated that customers would get the beer themselves from the cooler and then go to the counter to pay for it. Dorothy Mouton stated that the Respondent would get the beer from the cooler himself, which required him to walk outside the area behind the bar into the area of the room, in which the bar was located, to the cooler, which would allow him to view the rear room and restroom area of the licensed premises. Chris Dortch testified that the Respondent stayed behind the counter during beer sales. Elizabeth Freeman stated that she had observed the Respondent move from behind the counter into the open area of the licensed premises in the act of getting a beer for a customer. Thus, the Respondent's witnesses' testimony as to this question was inconsistent in terms of rebutting the testimony of Deputy Patterson as to the manner in which beverages were sold by the Respondent, as that relates to the Respondent's physical position in the licensed premises and ability to see what activities transpired in the rear room, the area of the restroom entrance and the pool table. In any event, the foregoing analysis reveals that the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses is more credible. It is concluded that that of the Respondent's witness, and the Respondent himself, show a lack of knowledge, clear memory, and consistency, at best, without reaching the question of whether any of the Respondent's witnesses deliberately falsified their testimony. Accordingly, the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses, to the extent that it conflicts with that of the Respondent's witnesses, is accepted as more credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the competent, credible evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, JIMMIE WILLIAMS, d/b/a Copa Cabana, be found guilty of the offenses set forth in Counts II and III of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further recommended that Count I of the Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. It is further recommended that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondent be revoked and that a civil penalty of $2,000.00 be assessed against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-719 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-6. Accepted. Accepted, but not as probative of the ultimate fact of the sale of rock cocaine by the Respondent, himself. Accepted, but not as probative of the ultimate fact of the sale of rock cocaine by the Respondent, himself. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not as probative of any material issue presented for adjudication. 12.-16. Accepted, in that these proposed findings of fact describe the testimony of these witnesses. However, these witnesses have been determined to be not credible. 17. Accepted, to the extent that it is arc accurate description of the Respondent's testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-4. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as not Entirely in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. 7.-9. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and hot in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not, itself, materially dispositive. Rejected, as not, .in itself, materially dispositive. Accepted, in part, but the evidence in this case does not delineate the extent of the premises owned or controlled by the Respondent, and to that extent, it is rejected. Rejected, as subordinate to tide Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as to it's purported material import. Rejected, as to its material import in relation to the remainder of Deputy Patterson's testimony. Rejected, as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not being an accurate reflection of the overall sense of the witnesses' testimonies. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as being contrary to the greater weight of the clear and convincing evidence. Accepted, but not, itself, dispositive of material issues presented, except to the extent that it has not been proven that the Respondent, himself, offered any drugs for sale. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as not being, itself, dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as immaterial. Even if this is true, it does not overcome proof that the Copa Cabana club's operations constitute a nuisance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Leo A. Thomas, Esq. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32581 Leonard Ivey, Director Department Of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Daughtin J. Rhue, operated a business, J's Cut Rate Variety Center, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under a Series 2-APS beverage license, No. 16-731, issued by Petitioner. On May 26, 1983, Beverage Officer D'Ambrosia entered Respondent's place of business on a matter unrelated to the offenses charged here (nonpayment of Florida sales tax). While there, he noticed several packs of cigarettes on the shelf behind the counter which appeared to be nontaxed cigarettes. These cigarettes, which he knew to be untaxed because of the red meter stamp imprinted on the bottom of the packs (tax-paid cigarettes have a black metered stamp on the bottom of the pack), were mixed in with the tax-paid cigarettes offered for sale by Respondent. Mr. D'Ambrosia said nothing about this to Respondent at that time, but then conducted a search elsewhere in the store for other nontaxed cigarettes and could find none. When he came back to the counter again, he found that those packs which bore the red, nontaxed stamp had been reversed on the shelf so that the stamps were not facing outward as they had been previously. Along with Respondent, he examined all the cigarettes on the shelves and found 12 packs that bore the red, nontaxed stamp. There were 7 packs of Lark Lights 100s, 3 packs of Kool Super Lights, 1 pack of Benson & Hedges Menthol and 1 pack of Marlboro. The stamp these packs bore is issued only to the Indians, and cigarettes so marked and stamped are not for resale to non-Indian consumers. No other nontaxed cigarettes were found at that time either on the shelves or elsewhere in the store. However, review of the file on Respondent's license indicates that in April, 1979, Respondent was previously found to have 254 packs of untaxed cigarettes in his store for resale. Action was taken at that time pursuant to stipulation between the parties. Respondent admits the nontaxed cigarettes were on his shelves on May 26, 1983, but denies having known it prior to it being pointed out to him by the beverage agent. He contends that he orders all cigarettes for the store from only two vendors, Pueblo and Wholesale Plus, Inc., and that his employee picks them up from the wholesaler and stocks the shelves. Further, he denies purchasing or stocking the brands untaxed on his shelves. He also denies that the untaxed packs were touched during the visit by Mr. D'Ambrosia, indicating that they were not turned around as alleged. Notwithstanding Respondent's protestations, the untaxed cigarettes were, by his own admission, offered for sale on his shelves The dispute as to whether he knew the untaxed cigarettes were there is resolved against him. He states he worked there every day. It is unlikely he was not aware of their presence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, Series 2-APS, No. 16-731, be suspended for thirty (30) days and that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Daughtin J. Rhue 1415 N.W. Fifth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
