The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 30, 1997, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state agency charged with enforcing Florida's Beverage Law, and, specifically, with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in the state. Sections 561.02 and .11(1), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, the Vampire Cafe held alcoholic beverage license number 41-01242, series 2-COP, which authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises of the Vampire Cafe, located at 1306 20th Street, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Eric Lappalainen was the secretary/treasurer of the Vampire Cafe, holding twenty percent ownership interest. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on May 14, 1997, Detective Richard Boyd of the Vero Beach Police Department entered the Vampire Cafe to conduct an undercover investigation of underage drinking on the premises; he was alone. Detective Boyd observed that no one was checking identification at the door of the establishment, which was a coffee house open to persons of all ages and in which both nonalcoholic and alcoholic beverages were served. Detective Boyd sat at the bar and observed that Eric Lappalainen was tending bar; although Detective Boyd thought Mr. Lappalainen was the only employee in the cafe at the time, a part-time employee named Nathan Palmer was working also. The cafe was a small establishment, and it was crowded, with approximately forty people standing or sitting at tables and at the bar. Even though the lights were low, Detective Boyd could distinguish facial features from one end of the bar to the other. Detective Boyd observed a young man approach the bar about seven feet from where he was seated and hand Mr. Lappalainen two one-dollar bills, which he put into the cash register. Detective Boyd could not hear the conversation between Mr. Lappalainen and the young man, but the young man did not show Mr. Lappalainen any identification. Mr. Lappalainen drew two glasses of dark liquid from a tap labeled "Guinness Stout," and he handed them to the young man. Detective Boyd tested the liquid drawn from the tap by ordering a Guinness Stout, and he confirmed that it was an alcoholic beverage. Detective Boyd believed that the young man he saw purchase the beers was Jason Thatcher. He based this identification on his contact with Jason several weeks prior to May 14, 1997, when he had arrested Jason for possession and cultivation of drugs. Jason was born on October 10, 1978, and was nineteen years old on May 14, 1997. Based upon my observation of Jason at the hearing, his appearance suggests that he could have been twenty-one years of age. Detective Boyd did not arrest either Mr. Lappalainen or Jason at the time he observed the sale because he was still conducting his undercover investigation. However, Jason was arrested two weeks after the incident, and Mr. Lappalainen was arrested on June 25, 1997, over a month after the incident. It was Mr. Lappalainen's habit to ask for identification from each person purchasing an alcoholic beverage in the Vampire Cafe to verify that he or she was of legal age; the only exception to this practice was when Mr. Lappalainen knew the person and knew that he or she was twenty-one years of age or older. Mr. Lappalainen asked for identification when a person purchased his or her first alcoholic beverage and did not usually require further identification from the same person during the evening. Jason Thatcher was in the Vampire Cafe at the time Detective Boyd entered the premises. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lappalainen sold an alcoholic beverage to a Jason Thatcher, who is under the age of twenty-one years. However, the evidence is not sufficient to establish that Detective Boyd observed Jason purchase his first beer at the cafe on the night of May 14, 1997. Mr. Lappalainen was first confronted with the charges of sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor at the time of his arrest on June 25, 1997. He could not, therefore, be expected to recall precisely whether he had asked for Jason's identification and whether the identification produced showed that Jason was twenty-one years of age. Under these circumstances, the evidence presented by Mr. Lappalainen that it was his habit to request identification before selling an alcoholic beverage is sufficient to give rise to the inference that he asked Jason to provide identification before he purchased his first beer on May 14, 1997. Had Jason produced false identification in response to the request, his appearance is such that Mr. Lappalainen could reasonably have believed him to be twenty-one years old.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Action against the Vampire Cafe, Inc., dated June 30, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Eric Lappalainen, pro se 3865 North Highway A1A Fort Pierce, Florida 34949 Lt. Bob Young 800 Virginia Avenue, Suite 7 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, 2-COP be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a series 2- COP alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, authorizing the Respondent to sell only beer and wine on the premises of East Side Tavern (Tavern), located on Cummer Road, 1 mile east of Highway 301, Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Around 12:30 a.m. on May 16, 1994, Special Agents Ashley Murray and Keith B. Hamilton went to the Tavern in an undercover capacity. This undercover activity was initiated due to a request of the Pasco County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) concerning allegations of drugs sales on the premises of the Tavern. Agent Murray has been a sworn law enforcement officer for five and one- half years. Agent Murray completed a two-week basic Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) drug school regarding the identification, sale and the manner of use of drugs. Agent Murray also completed a three-day undercover DEA school. During her five and one-half years as a sworn law enforcement officer, Agent Murray has been involved in at least 100 occasions where drugs were being sold or used. Agent Hamilton has been a law enforcement officer since 1981. During Agent Hamilton's tenure as a law enforcement officer he has been involved in numerous training classes regarding the identification, sale and manner of use of drugs, including courses taught by DEA. Agent Hamilton has been trained to recognize the scent of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton has been in at least 70 different establishments where drugs, including marijuana, were being sold and used. As the agents approached the Tavern, they noticed a large number of people (100-150) standing in front of the Tavern and in a vacant lot across the road from the Tavern. Additionally, cars were parked along Cummer Road in front of the Tavern. The agents also testified that a "lot" of the people standing outside appeared to be "young". Upon entering the Tavern, the agents noticed that no one was checking identification at the door. The Tavern consists of two rooms divided by wall with a door between the two rooms. The bar is located in one room. The second room is a disco/dance area. Based on the description of the inside of the Tavern, a person behind the bar would not have clear view of all of the disco/dance area. On May 16, 1994, the Tavern was crowded with customers. Agent Murray saw what appeared to her to be a "lot of really young kids" in the crowd. Upon entering the Tavern on May 16, 1994, Agent Hamilton detected a scent in the air that resembled, based on his training and experience, the odor of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton did not actually see anyone smoking marijuana inside the Tavern. Agent Murray also noticed, both on the inside of the Tavern in the dance floor area and outside the Tavern by the entrance, what appeared to her to be a hand-to-hand exchange between customers of what appeared to be money for something that she could not identify. As Agent Murray left the Tavern she noticed what appeared to her, based on experience and training, to be customers passing and maybe smoking marijuana. However, Agent Murray did not actually see the marijuana or the customers actually smoking marijuana. Agent Murray also noticed a customer with a closed fist going to another customer and placing the closed fist over an open palm and then the release of the closed fist. Based on her training and experience, this appeared to Agent Murray to be an exchange of crack cocaine between the customers. Agent Murray did not see or confirm that any crack cocaine was actually being exchanged. Upon reentering the Tavern, the agents were together at the bar and saw a black female customer place a large bottle of liquid on top of the bar close to where they were sitting. The customer ordered something from the bar and left with the bottle. Agent Murray testified that by observing the label on the bottle she was able to identify the liquid as scotch whiskey. Agent Hamilton testified that he observed the same black female with a bottle of "alcohol, distilled spirits" and further identified the liquid as a "bottle of gin". Neither Agent Murray nor Agent Hamilton testified that the bottle bore the manufacturer's insignia, name or trademark. Both agents were apparently close enough to the customer to be able to observe the label. Neither agent smelled or tasted the contents of the bottle. For reasons of their own, the agents did not seize the bottle. Agent Murray thought she saw the Respondent behind the bar on that day. Agent Hamilton referred to the person behind the bar that day as the clerk but did not identify the Respondent as being the clerk on May 16, 1994. On August 8, 1994, ten DABT agents and 20 deputies from the PCSO conducted a walk-through inspection (inspection) of the Tavern. The agents and deputies were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Sergeant Allen Ray observed an individual inside the Tavern in possession of a cup of beer, which individual Sergeant Ray suspected of being under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray testified that this person identified herself as Tamieka Ranell Shaw and that Shaw advised him she was under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray then took Shaw outside and placed her in the custody of Agent Hamilton for processing. Agent Hamilton testified that Shaw advised him that she was 16 years of age. At this time, Shaw did not have a driver's license or any other type of identification in her possession that would verify her age or date of birth. Furthermore, Shaw was not identified by a family member or anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age or date of birth. Neither Shaw nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Shaw's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Shaw was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. There was no evidence that Respondent or any person working for Respondent had sold, given, served or permitted the beer to be served to Shaw. During the August 8, 1994, inspection, DABT Sergeant John Allen observed three individuals in the Tavern that he suspected of being under 21 years of age that were in possession of what Sergeant Allen considered to be an alcoholic beverage. Sergeant Allen escorted each of these individuals out of the Tavern separately. None of these individuals had a drivers license or any other type of identification to verify their age or date of birth. Sergeant Allen testified that each of the individuals identified themselves and admitted to being under the age of 21 years. However, one of the individuals managed to leave the premises before any other identification could be made. Sergeant Allen testified that Ronald Adair, one of the alleged underage customers referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above, was identified by his mother as being under 21 years of age in a telephone conversation with Sergeant Allen on August 8, 1994. However, neither Adair, his mother nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Adair's age was present at the hearing to testify as to Adair's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any type of documentary evidence of Adair's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Adair was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The person identifying himself as Marlon Inmon, another of the alleged underage customers referred to Finding of Fact 15 above, was alleged to have been in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the Tavern on August 8, 1994. Sergeant Allen testified that he talked to a relative of Inmon's over the telephone and that this relative identified Inmon and advised Sgt. Allen that Inmon was under 21 years of age. However, this person did not talk to or see the person claiming to be Inmon. Neither Inmon nor the person identifying Inmon over the telephone or anyone else with personal knowledge of Inmon's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Inmon's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Inmon was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The third alleged underage person referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above in possession of an alcoholic beverage on August 8, 1994, was never identified by anyone before he left the premises. Neither this person nor anyone else having personal knowledge of this person's age testified at the hearing as to this person's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to this person's age. DABT has failed to prove that this person was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Special Agent Michael Freese seized a 1.75 liter of Seagrams gin, alcoholic beverage. The gin was in plain view on a table in the dance floor area. In attempting to seize the gin, Agent Freese had a confrontation with a customer who claimed the gin belonged to him. There was no evidence that the gin had been purchased on the premises. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on the licensed premises of a licensee holding only a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present at the Tavern on August 8, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position at the bar to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage on the table. Also during the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Agent Freese observed a small plastic bag containing a substance that resembled marijuana on the floor behind one of the speakers around the "DJ" booth. Agent Freese seized the bag and identified it as marijuana by sight and smell. A field test conducted by Agent Freese indicated that the substance was marijuana. However, Agent Freese testified that the field test may not be 100 percent accurate. No laboratory analysis was made of the substance suspected of being marijuana. DABT failed to prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Likewise, DABT has failed to prove that Stewart was aware of alleged marijuana being present on the premises. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Lieutenant Bruce Schmelter, PCSO, seized a loaded 22-caliber revolver that was protruding from beneath one of the speakers near the "DJ" booth. The revolver was turned over to DABT. However, DABT failed to prove that Stewart was aware of the revolver being present on the premises. After the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Sergeant Allen gave Respondent official notice of the problems encountered during the inspection. On September 18, 1994, a second walk-through inspection (second inspection) was conducted at the Tavern by ten DABT agents and 25 PCSO deputies. The DABT agents and the deputies from the PCSO were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the second inspection, agents Murray and Aikens advised Respondent that they intended to go behind the bar to secure that area. After advising Stewart of their intended action, there was a confrontation between Stewart and the agents wherein Stewart's daughter became involved. The agents became concerned because of the crowd and notified Sergeant Ray of the problem. Sergeant Ray advised Stewart of why they were there and that DABT agents had the authority to secure the area behind the bar. After this explanation, Respondent allowed Sergeant Ray and another DABT agent behind the bar without further incident. After the incident at the bar during the second inspection, Agents Murray and Aikens seized a bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, an alcoholic beverage, which they found on the floor against the wall in the area of the bar inside the Tavern. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on or at the licensed premises of a licensee holding a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position as to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage. During the second inspection, Agent Hamilton observed an individual in possession of a bottle of beer which individual he suspected of being under 21 years of age. Agent Hamilton testified that the individual was identified as Corey Anthony Owens, 20 years of age. Neither Owens nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Owens' age were present to testify at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to Owens' age. Agent Hamilton testified that Owens advised him that he had purchased the beer in the Tavern from a black male behind the bar. DABT presented no other evidence that the beer had been purchased in the Tavern. Although DABT has proven that Owens did have beer in his possession while in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, DABT failed to prove that Owens purchased or was served or given the beer in his possession on September 18, 1994, by Stewart or his servant, agent or employee. Furthermore, DABT failed to prove that Owens was under 21 years of age on September 18, 1994. On December 7, 1994, Captain Bruce Ashley met with Stewart at Stewart's request to discuss the Administrative Action that had been served on Stewart. At Stewart's request, Captain Ashley marked an X by the first box on the Request For Hearing which states as follows: "I dispute issues of fact. (Please list which of the charges and counts in the Administrative Action you dispute and why)." Also at Stewart's request, Captain Ashley wrote the following: "There are facts and issues that are not true that need to be discussed. I have documents and facts to bring out about this matter." (Emphasis supplied) Below this statement Captain Ashley wrote "Written On Behalf Of Licensee By" and signed his name. Below the above underlined statement there was an X with Isaiah Stewart's signature. On December 8, 1994, Captain Ashley wrote a memorandum setting forth what Captain Ashley considered to be the conversation between he and Stewart on December 7, 1994. However, because of the circumstances under which this conversation with Respondent occurred and the conflict between the statement signed by Respondent and Captain Ashley's memorandum, the memorandum is somewhat suspect and a cause for concern, and thereby lacks credibility. DABT's exhibit 4 consist of computer records from the PCSO listing the calls that the PCSO responded to around the Tavern from May 12, 1993 through June 29, 1994. Using these computer records DABT summarized the type of calls and the total number of each type of call received between February, 1994 and June 29, 1994. This summary shows a total of 69 calls of various types responded to by the PCSO during the period covered by the summary. Of the 69 calls listed in the summary, 22 were calls to backup units which apparently were backup for some of the other 47 calls. Ten calls were to assist a sick person. The balance of the calls were as follows: 2-affray/incite or encourage riot; 1- special patrol request; 1-juvenile problem; 3-miscellaneous incident; 2-field interrogation report; 4-shooting in area; 1-battery (simple); 4- disturbance(noise); 1-accident traffic; 1-illegal parking; 1-suspicious person; 3-narcotics violation; 1-throwing a deadly missile; 1-obstructing police without violence; 1-warrant arrest; 1-robbery, strong arm; 1-simple assault; 2-traffic warning; 1-aggravated assault; 1-weapons; 1-shooting into occupied dwelling; 1- battery on officer and 2-special detail. It is clear from the PCSO computer printout that the whole area around Cummer Road, not just the area around the Tavern, kept the PCSO busy responding to calls during the period in question. DABT presented no evidence as to the legitimacy of the call or if the call involved the activity of the Tavern's customers on the premises of the Tavern or the activity of someone else in the vicinity of the Tavern or what action was required upon the PCSO responding to the call. DABT failed to prove that Respondent kept or maintained a premises which was resorted to by persons who use or sell illegal drugs. DABT failed to prove that between the dates of February 1994, and September 1994, the Respondent maintained a public nuisance at his licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts 5 and 8 of the Administrative Action and for this violation that DABT assess an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 against Respondent. It is further recommended that DABT dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Administrative Action. RECOMMENDED this day 27th of September, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 27th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1482 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1-3(2); 4-5(3); 6(6); 7(7); 8(8); 9(9); 10(5); 11(10); 12(4,10-11); 13(11); 14(12); 15(13); 17-18(15); 21-22(19); 24-25(21); 26(22); 27(23); 28-29(24); 30(25); 32(27); and 34(28). Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in Finding of Fact 14, except that portion regarding the age of Shaw, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 19 is adopted in Finding of Fact 16, except that portion regarding the age of Adair, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except that portion regarding the age of Inmon, which is rejected. Proposed finding of Fact 23 is adopted in Finding of Fact 19, except that the field test did not absolutely prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in Finding of Fact 26, except that portion regarding the age of Owens and that Owens purchased the beer in the Tavern, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 33 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Respondent elected not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard A. Grumberg, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Isaiah Stewart, Pro se Post Office Box 429 Lacoochie Florida 33537
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated Sections 562.11(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), by selling an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's undercover investigative aide on January 15, 2004; and (b) if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds License No. BEV2601975, Series 1-APS. The license authorizes Respondent to sell beer and wine at the licensed premises, which is located at 1762 Sheridan Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent is the sole owner of Express Food Store (the store), a relatively small convenience store. He has been licensed to sell beer and wine at the store since 1982. In the approximately 22 years that Respondent has owned and operated the store, he has no knowledge of an incident where he personally sold alcohol to an underage person prior to this case. Respondent has a personal and business rule not to sell alcohol to underaged persons. He usually checks an individual's identification before selling him or her alcohol and tobacco because underage persons frequently attempt to purchase these products from the store. He trains his employees not to sell alcohol to underaged persons. He posted Budweiser and Miller Lite signs in the store that say "We I.D." On January 15, 2004, Petitioner performed undercover compliance checks of licensed establishments, which were placed on a list by random sample. The store was on the list to be checked. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Respondent was at the store working behind the checkout counter in the capacity of owner and cashier. The store was relatively busy with several customers. Respondent was waiting on the customers, and in between customers, he was training a new employee, who was having some difficulty operating the lottery machine located near the cash register. Respondent was eager to keep the customers moving as fast as he could move them. Jerry Horky acted as Petitioner's underage operative/investigative aide on January 15, 2004. Mr. Horky, who was born on March 28, 1984, was 19-years-old. Mr. Horky was appropriately groomed and dressed. In other words, he was clean-shaven and not dressed up or down, but was wearing jeans and a shirt with a collar. Petitioner's agents took a picture of Mr. Horky on January 15, 2004. The copy of Mr. Horky's picture that Respondent offered in evidence is of a very poor quality. However, at the time of the hearing, Mr. Horky did not have the appearance of someone over the age of 21. To the contrary, he was average in stature and decidedly youthful in appearance. Mr. Horky, Agent Raymon Arguelles, and Agent Elizabeth Anno drove to the store and parked in front so that they could see inside the store. Petitioner's agents checked to make sure that Mr. Horky had his driver's license showing his correct age and that he did not have any false identification. The agents then instructed Mr. Horky to attempt to buy an alcoholic beverage from the store using funds provided by Petitioner. The agents specifically told Mr. Horky to answer truthfully if anyone inquired about his age. Following the instructions of Petitioner's agents, Mr. Horky entered the store, walked to the beer cooler, retrieved one 12-ounce Budweiser beer, and walked to the counter to wait his turn in line behind at least one customer. Respondent took care of the customer in front of Mr. Horky. Respondent then looked at Mr. Horky and asked if he could help him. Without saying a word, Mr. Horky placed the can of beer on the counter and handed Respondent the money to pay for it. Respondent accepted the money, selling Mr. Horky the beer. Respondent did not ask Mr. Horky's age or check his identification. Mr. Horky exited the store and gave the can of beer to Petitioner's agents, who had witnessed the transaction from their parked car. Petitioner's agents waited until all the customers left the store. Then they entered the store and spoke with Respondent. As soon as they identified themselves, Respondent asked if Mr. Horky was underaged. When the agents responded affirmatively, Respondent stated that he did not check Mr. Horky's identification because he thought Mr. Horky looked old enough. Agent Anno told Respondent how surprised she was that he had sold Mr. Horky a beer because: (a) She remembered him from the time that she first began working for Petitioner in 1992 when one of Respondent's employees was cited on two occasions for selling alcohol to an underaged person; (b) Petitioner had not received a complaint that Respondent was violating the beverage laws; and (c) Petitioner had never cited Respondent for personally violating the beverage laws. Mr. Horky worked for Petitioner as an underage investigative aide from the age of 16 until he reached age 20. During that period of time, Mr. Horky participated in 754 compliance check operations. In 504 of the operations, the licensed establishments refused to sell him alcohol. Approximately 250 licensed establishments sold him alcohol.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Captain Cynthia C. Britt Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 600 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Tonia Yazgi, Esquire 3123 Beach Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Jack Tuter, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent, James P. Carpenter, held alcoholic beverage license number 21-429, Series 2-COP, issued by the State of Florida. On August 6, 1987, Alphonso Fontdevila, a Community Service Deputy with the Collier County Sheriff's Office, and an individual under the age of nineteen, was on special detail with sheriff's deputy, Todd Taylor, checking out various liquor stores in the area to see if the operators were checking the age of purchasers. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Fontdevila and Taylor drove in an unmarked car to the Respondent's place of business, the Pony Keg, a drive through bar and restaurant located on U.S. 41 South in Naples, Florida. Before Fontdevila entered the facility, Taylor got out of the car and went over to stand by some bushes to the side of the facility. Though concealed from sight, he could see what was going on inside the facility. He observed Fontdevila drive into the facility and up to the counter, where he was waited on by the Respondent, personally. Mr. Carpenter approached Fontdevila from behind the counter and asked what he wanted. When Fontdevila indicated he wanted a six pack of beer, Respondent gave it to him. Mr. Fontdevila paid Respondent $3.24, receiving change from a $5 bill. At no time did Mr. Carpenter ask for any identification or proof of age from Mr. Fontdevila. Having made the purchase, Mr. Fontdevila left the facility, picked up Mr. Taylor and returned to the sheriff's office. Respondent claims no recollection of the purchase in question. However, he claims that on the date of the purchase, a Thursday, he was in his office working on the payroll. Though he usually has two people on duty in the facility, when necessary he comes out and serves patrons to speed service. On the evening in question, trade was sporadic. When Fontdevila entered the facility, Carpenter had just come out of his office to help his sales' lady serve a line of cars and they were not working fast. It is often difficult to get a good look at patrons when one is off to the side looking into a dark car, especially at night. It is difficult to tell if the person or patron is over age or not. Respondent has a standard procedure at the Pony Keg which requires his employees to check identification. Because he understands kids will try to buy beer improperly, he emphasizes to all his employees the need to check identification and age. If he suspects a minor is trying to buy beer, the patron is normally refused service if he will not produce identification to establish age. In some cases in the past, his employees have called the sheriff's office to come to the facility when they suspect an underaged individual is making a purchase. However, since he has no authority to hold the patron, ordinarily the patron is gone by the time the sheriff's car gets there. Mr. Carpenter was issued a citation in this case and tried in county court. The judge withheld adjudication and imposed court costs. The records of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco reflect that on November 16, 1983, Respondent was issued an official notice that an employee had been observed selling alcoholic beverages to an underaged individual and on April 23, 1986, the Respondent was issued a second official notice alleging similar misconduct. Respondent has, since this latest incident, been instrumental in the establishment of a seminar for facility owners on methods of identifying patrons for age. He has also put his business up for sale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 21-429 be suspended for thirty days and that he pay a fine of $500. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 29th day of March, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 24th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4934 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. 1-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Christine Hissam, Esguire Faerber and Miller 2335 Tamiami Trail North Suite 505 Naples, Florida 33940-4482 s Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph Sole General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Respondents currently hold a Series 2APS license, number 45-00254, for Eastside Grocery, which is located at 132 South Highway 33, Groveland, Florida. The current term of the license expires on September 30, 1988. On February 26, 1988, Victoria Solozabal entered Eastside Grocery at about 4:25 p.m. Claude Cruce, a law enforcement investigator employed by Petitioner, entered the store directly behind her. Ms. Solozabal was acting under the direction of Mr. Cruce and another of Petitioner's investigators, Carl Lloyd, in assisting them in the detection of sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Ms. Solozabal was born on August 23, 1969. Upon entering the store, she carried with her only her driver's license and a small amount of cash for the purchase of a single can of beer. Ms. Solozabal went directly to an electric cooler in the back of the store, selected a chilled can of Budweiser beer, and took it to the checkout counter. With Mr. Cruce directly behind her and Mr. Lloyd only a few feet away watching, Ms. Solozabal placed the beer on the checkout counter and took out a $10 bill while Respondent Sandra Pettingill was ringing up the purchase. Ms. Pettingill demanded 75 cents, and Ms. Solozabal gave her the $10 bill. Ms. Pettingill placed the bill in the cash register and returned the change to Ms. Solozabal. At no time did Ms. Solozabal or any other employee of Eastside Grocery ask Ms. Solozabal her age or for proof of age. As Ms. Solozabal approached the door to leave the store, Mr. Cruce stopped her, demanded her identification, and seized the beer. He and Mr. Lloyd then informed Ms. Pettingill that she had sold an alcoholic beverage to an underaged person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 years and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $250. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 4th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1759 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Facts Adopted. Adopted in substance. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. 5-6. Adopted. Second 6. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as subordinate. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. Treatment Accorded Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Adopted, except any resemblance between Ms. Solozabal and a regular customer of legal age is rejected as irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected as irrelevant. Ms. Pettingill testified that her normal procedure was to check proof of age before ringing up a sale. She also testified that Mr. Cruce asked about the couch drops only after she had taken the $10 bill from Ms. Solozabal. Mr. Cruce's request for cough drops thus had nothing to do with the sale, which had already been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 George Kelley, Esquire 368 East Main Street Post Office Box 1132 Apopka, Florida 32703 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the facts alleged in the Notice to Show Cause in this case are true and whether those facts, to the extent that they are true, warrant revocation, suspension or other discipline of the license of Respondent. The Notice to Show Cause explicitly alleges several drug-related and one disorderly conduct violations on the licensed premises and implicitly alleges the Respondent's culpable responsibility for the violations under Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statues. The Notice To Show Cause also alleges that Respondent maintained the licensed premises as a place where controlled substances were illegally kept, sold, or used in violation of Sections 823.01 and 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Sections 893.13(2)(c) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Rene Tamer, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, for the licensed premises known as El Emperador, located at 36-38 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On January 27, 1986, Beverage Investigator Carlos Baixauli went to the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, he saw a black latin female walk over to a dog that was lying on the floor. Baixauli heard the woman ask the dog in spanish if he (the dog) wanted to have sex. The woman then fondled the dog's penis for approximately 20 minutes. Night manager Luis Tamer was present when this incident occurred. On February 5, 1986, Investigator Baixauli, while inside of the licensed premises of El Emperador, arranged to purchase one gram of cocaine from a white latin male, known as El Indio (the Indian). El Indio told Baixauli that he needed the $60.00 "up front." When Baixauli expressed concern as to whether El Indio would return with the cocaine or his money, El Indio stated that he worked at El Emperador, was always around and could be trusted. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio left the premises, returned and handed Baixauli a small plastic package of cocaine wrapped in a white napkin. Baixauli opened the napkin and conspicuously inspected the package of cocaine by holding it up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was present and behind the bar at the time. On February 10, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While Baixauli was at the bar talking to on-duty manager Luis Tamer, El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he wanted to buy some "yeyo," a Spanish term for cocaine. Baixauli agreed to purchase one gram of cocaine and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio subsequently returned and again interrupted a conversation between Baixauli and Luis Tamer. El Indio handed Baixauli a matchbook, from which Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed to his partner Garcia. El Indio told Baixauli that he could be found at El Emperador between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. performing clean-up duties and at 11:00 A.M. stocking the beer coolers or running errands for Rene Tamer. On February 12, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, Rene Tamer asked Baixauli: "Are you still working for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages?", to which Baixauli feigned ignorance and replied that he did not know what Rene Tamer was talking about. Rene Tamer, Luis Tamer and other employees then briefly retired to the kitchen where Baixauli observed them "looking out" at him as if to get a better view. El Indio arrived at El Emperador at approximately 2:00 P.M. and began stacking beers and cleaning the premises. El Indio asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine and Baixauli handed him $60.00 in front of Luis Tamer. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine from the matchbook, held it up while inspecting it and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Luis Tamer was at the front counter during the transaction. On February 13, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. El Indio asked Baixauli if he could bring him anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for one gram of cocaine. At approximately 4:00 P.M. El Indio returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package containing cocaine, which Baixauli held up and tapped with his finger. Luis Tamer, the manager, was standing behind the bar and observed Baixauli's inspection of the cocaine. Luis Tamer smiled and said nothing. On February 17, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of Emperador. Baixauli went to the bar and struck up a conversation with Luis Tamer. El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he needed anything, to which Baixauli replied "yes" and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio returned with some cocaine while Baixauli was still speaking with Luis Tamer. Baixauli removed the plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up to inspect it. Once again, Luis Tamer just smiled. On February 24, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Baixauli went over to off-duty employee Camaquay and struck up a conversation. El Indio approached them and asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine. Baixauli responded that he did and gave El Indio $60.00, at which time Camaquay started laughing and said that he had been told that Baixauli was a "Narc" and must be setting up El Indio. El Indio later returned to where Baixauli was seated at the bar talking to Camaquay and manager, Luis Tamer, and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up for inspection, tapping it with his finger. Neither Camaquay nor Luis Tamer said anything to Baixauli. Later on in the evening of February 24, 1986, Baixauli asked Camaquay if El Indio was coming back to El Emperador. Camaquay told Baixauli not to worry, because he, Camaquay, could get cocaine from the same source as El Indio. Baixauli, after obtaining change from Luis Tamer, gave Camaquay $30.00 for a half-gram of cocaine. Camaquay later returned and tossed a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the bag at eye level and tapped it with his fingers in view of manager Luis Tamer and other patrons. On February 26, 1986, Investigator Baixauli went to El Emperador and asked Luis Tamer if Camaquay was in. Camaquay went over to Baixauli, showed him a plastic bag containing marijuana and asked if he wanted to smoke. Baixauli said no. Camaquay then went into the restroom from which Baixauli then smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Manager Luis Tamer asked Baixauli where Camaquay was and Baixauli told him that Camaquay was in the bathroom smoking marijuana. Later at El Emperador on February 26, 1986, El Indio approached Baixauli and asked if he needed anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for some cocaine. El Indio later returned and gave Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook, held it up and tapped it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was standing behind the bar looking at Baixauli and Camaquay was standing by the pool table looking at Baixauli. After Baixauli received his cocaine from El Indio on February 26, 1986, Camaquay approached several patrons playing pool and asked if they wanted to buy drugs. Camaquay showed them a plastic package of marijuana which he took from his pocket, in full view of Baixauli, and Luis Tamer the manager, who were all looking in his direction. After Camaquay's attempt to sell marijuana to the pool playing patrons, he approached Baixauli and asked if he could bring him anything. When Baixauli agreed, Camaquay left the premises and shortly returned, tossing a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli and Luis Tamer, who was standing behind the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the plastic bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 4, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Luis Tamer yelled to El Indio that his "friends" were there. El Indio approached Baixauli and Baixauli gave him $60.00. While El Indio was out obtaining Baixauli's order, on-duty employee Camaquay went over to Baixauli and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and handed Camaquay $30.00 over the bar. El Indio returned shortly with a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Camaquay later returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli raised the bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 11, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited El Emperador. Luis Tamer was present and tending the bar. El Indio approached Baixauli and asked him if he needed any cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and gave El Indio $30.00 for a half gram of cocaine. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook containing a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli performed his usual post-sale inspection of the cocaine by holding the package up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Rene Tamer. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mr. Rene Tamer El Emperador 36-38 Ocean Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33149 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney Secretary The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charges raised in this matter, the Respondent, Fresh Start, Inc., was the holder of a valid beverage license No. 62-661, Series 4-COP. That beverage license is issued to the licensed premises located at 7898 U.S. Highway 19, Pinellas Park, Florida, and known as the Strip Ahoy. Mr. Jack Leveritt is president of Fresh Start, Inc., and one of the two owners of that corporation. Mr. Tom Whitaker owns 50 percent of the stock of Fresh Start, Inc., and is vice president of that corporation. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by and between the parties, on the record at the formal hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Count 1 - On or about March 9, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver controlled substance, diazepan, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Patton, on the licensed premises. Count 2 - On or about March 9, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver a controlled substance, diazepan, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Herrick, on the licensed premises. Count 3 - On or about March 10, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance, diazepan, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Ferdon, on the licensed premises. Count 4 - On or about March 12, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Ferdon, on the licensed premises. Count 5 - On or about March 20, 1983, Joyce Ann Seville, also known as Sherry, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statutes 893.03, Lysergic acid Diathamine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 6 - On or about March 31, 1983, Sherry Ann Peters, also known as Carol, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Herrick, on the licensed premises. Count 7 - On or about April 1, 1983, Elizabeth Chader, also known as Luwanda, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 8 - On or about November 29, 1983, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 9 - On or about December 15, 1983, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 10- On or about January 8, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigators M. Freese and B. Ashley, on the licensed promises. Count 11 - On or about January 12, 1984, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 12 - On or about January 12, 1984, Cherie Webber, also known as Cherie, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 13 - On or about January 12, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 14 - On or about January 12, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 15 - On or about January 13, 1984, Cherie Webber, also known as Cherie, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 16 - On or about January 13, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 17 - On or about January 17, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 18 - On or about January 17, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 19 - On or about January 19, 1984, Christie Howard, also known as Christie, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 20 - On or about January 28, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 21- On or about February 3, 1984, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 24 - On or about the below listed dates and times, entertainers Cody, Cherie, Valerie, Kimberly, Kim and Gayla, while actively engaged as dancers on the licensed premises, did unlawfully beg or solicit, patrons, customers or visitors, Beverage Investigators B. Ashley, D. O'steen and M. Freese to purchase beverages for the entertainers. NO. DATE APPROX. TIME EMPLOYEE VICTIM 1 4-6-83 10:00 P.M. CODY, dancer O'STEEN 2 4-6-83 11:45 P.M. CODY, dancer O'STEEN 3 1-6-84 8:00 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 4 1-6-84 8:50 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 5 1-17-84 8:50 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 6 2-3-84 10:15 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 7 2-3-84 10:30 P.M. GAYLA, dancer ASHLEY 8 2-3-84 11:00 P.M. KIMBERLY, dancer FREESE 9 2-7-84 7:15 P.M. KIM, barmaid ASHLEY 10 2-7-84 7:30 P.M. VALERIE, dancer ASHLEY 11 2-7-84 11:20 P.M. KIM, barmaid FREESE The transaction referred o in Count I above, occurred on the evening of March 9, 1983. On that particular evening, Deputy D. Patton entered the licensed premises with too other undercover officers and was approached by a dancer named Theresa White. Ms. white and Officer Patton began talking and during the course of the conversation, Ms. White offered to obtain some Valium for Deputy Patton. Officer Patton indicated that he would be interested in purchasing some valium and Ms. White then left him and was seen talking with another dancer at the bar area. A short time later she came back and said there was none left at that time but that she was going to get some later in the evening. Approximately 1 1/2 hours later, she returned to Officer Patton and indicated that she had obtained the diazepan. Officer Patton paid her $5.00 and she gave four diazepan (Valium) tablets to Officer Patton. The money and the tablets were passed under the table out of sight. The purchase of cocaine referred to in Count 10 above occurred on the evening of January 8, 1964. On that particular evening, Beverage Officers B. Ashley and M. Freese, went to the licensed premises and upon entering sat along the west wall of the main lounge area. They were joined by a dancer named Kimberly Grenzbach. They had previously discussed buying some cocaine from Kimberly Grenzbach. Shortly after they arrived, Kimberly and Officer Freese went into the back room of the lounge. The Strip Ahoy Lounge is built somewhat in the shape of a ship with the bow pointing toward the north. In the northern most portion of the lounge is located an office and a dressing room separated by a wall. Just outside the office is a square bar area with stools surrounding the bar. This bar is located in the main lounge portion of the bar which is a room approximately 63 feet long and 27 feet wide. In the southwest corner of the building is located the men's and women's restroom. The back room referred to above is a room located at the southeast corner of the lounge with a doorway leading into the main lounge. This back room is used for table or lap dancing. When Officer Freese and Kimberly went into the back room, they sat at a table and Kimberly took two triangular shaped plastic baggies containing cocaine out of her purse and handed them to Freese. She made no attempt to conceal these baggies. Freese then examined the baggies and handed her $100. The money was handed to her above the table and in the open. The total purchase price of the 2 grams of cocaine was $200 and Freese told Kimberly that Ashley had the other $100. Kimberly and Freese them returned to a large lounge area and sat next to Ashley who then gave the additional $100 to Kimberly. On the evening of January 9, 1984, Officer Freese was in the Strip Ahoy Lounge and went into the back room with Kimberly to examine some cocaine she was proposing to sell him. After entering the back room, they sat at a table and Kimberly took two small plastic baggies of cocaine out of her purse and handed them to Freese. Freese then examined the baggies and said they looked short to him. About that time Cherie Webber and her ex-boyfriend came into the back room and sat at a table. Kimberly then said "Cherie would know if anyone would" whether the baggies were short. Kimberly and Freese then walked over to Cherie's table and Kimberly handed the two baggies to Cherie, who held them up and examined them. Cherie said they looked short to her and she then handed them to her boyfriend who examined them and said it looked like about $60 worth to him. On the evening of January 12, 1984, Officers Ashley and Freese returned to the Strip Ahoy and made the drug purchases referred to in Counts 12, 13, and 14 discussed above. Prior to entering the lounge that evening, the two officers had made arrangements to buy cocaine from Kimberly Grenzbach. After they entered the lounge, they sat and waited for Kimberly and were approached by another dancer named Cherie Webber. Cherie walked by and asked if they wanted any "coke." Coke is a street term or slang for cocaine. Freese and Ashley told her they had already made arrangements to buy some from Kimberly. Cherie then said that she had hers with her now and Freese asked her about the quality of the coke she had. She responded that hers was always good quality. Cherie then sat down and agreed to sell Freese a half gram and said she needed to go into the bathroom because she had a large bag in her purse and she didn't want the small baggies to fall on the fiber when she opened her purse. She went to the bathroom and returned a short time later and sat next to Freese. Ashley was seated on the other side of Freese and observed Cherie hand a small, clear plastic baggie of cocaine to Freese. Freese then handed $50 to Cherie. After completing the purchase from Cherie, Freese went into the back room with Kimberly. They sat at a table and Kimberly handed him two plastic baggies containing cocaine. He held them up and examined them very carefully because of the problem he had on January 9. He tapped the baggies as he examined them and then selected one of the two baggies. He then handed $100 to Kimberly and told her she would have to talk to Ashley about the other gram of cocaine. Handing over the cocaine and the cash was done openly and not concealed. Later, on the evening of January 12, 1984, Freese and Ashley were approached by Kimberly, who walked up and told Ashley she had his cocaine. Ashley then went into the back room with Kimberly and sat at a table. Kimberly handed a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine to Ashley. Ashley held it up at eye level and examined it and then handed cash to Kimberly. There were other patrons and dancers in the room at the time. After purchasing the cocaine from Kimberly, Freese had spoken to Cherie once again and told her that Ashley wanted another half gram. When Ashley rejoined Freese, they left the bar to obtain more money and returned after midnight. While sitting in the back room with a dancer named Brandy, Ashley was approached by Cherie who walked up and asked if he wanted the half gram. She took a large baggie out of her purse. The large baggie contained several small baggies. Ashley then told Brandy she would have to move so he could get some money out of his pocket. He handed $50 to Cherie and she handed him a small baggie containing cocaine. This transaction was openly viewed by Brandy, Kimberly Grenzbach, and Officer Freese. This purchase is referred to in Count 15 above. The purchase discussed in Count 16 above occurred on the evening of January 13, 1984. Prior to going to the Strip Ahoy, Officer Freese had telephoned Kimberly and made arrangements to buy some "gorilla biscuits" which is slang for Quaaludes or methaqualone. After entering the lounge Kimberly walked up to Freese and said she had the Quaaludes. They then went into the back room and sat at a table. Kimberly was working as a dancer this evening and when they sat down, another dancer named Nellie was performing a lap dance for a patron at the next table. Kimberly handed Freese a clear cellophane packet containing 6 capsules of methaqualone. Freese paid her $24. There was no attempt to conceal the transfer of the cash or the methaqualone. On January 17, 1984, Officers Freese and Ashley returned to the licensed premises. They had previously arranged to buy some methaqualone from Kimberly Grenzbach. Shortly after arriving, Freese went into the back room with Kimberly where he purchased three Quaaludes (methaqualone capsules). Prior to paying Kimberly the agreed $12 price, Officer Freese examined the capsules. The cash and capsules were exchanged in open view with no attempt to conceal the exchanges. After completing the transaction with Freese, Kimberly returned to the main lounge area where Ashley was waiting. She took Ashley into the back room where she took a clear cellophane cigarette packet containing 3 capsules of methaqualone out of her purse and handed them to Ashley. Ashley then handed her $12 cash. There was no attempt by either of them to conceal the transfer of the drugs or cash. Officer Freese returned to the licensed premises on January 28, 1984, and made the drug purchase referred to in Count 20 above. Freese had previously phoned Kimberly Grenzbach and arranged to buy 25 methaqualone capsules. When he entered the licensed premises, Freese sat next to the west wall in the main lounge area. He was reined by Kimberly Grenzbach, who told him she had the Quaaludes. She said she would have to go into the dressing room and get them out of the locker. She left and returned a short time later and sat next to Freese. She placed a clear plastic baggie containing the 25 methaqualone capsules on the bench seat between them. Freese picked up the bag and looked at the capsules. Someone walking by at that moment could have seen the bag and capsules. Freese then handed Kimberly $100 in cash. On the evening of February 1, 1984, Officers Freese and Ashley were again in the licensed premises. At one point Officer Freese observed Kimberly Grenzbach talking with a gentleman seated at the bar. Kimberly left the man and walked over to Freese. She said the man at the bar had asked her to go in the back room and dance for him and snort some cocaine. Later, Freese and Kimberly went into the back room and sat at a table. They observed a dancer named Nellie come into the back room with the gentleman that Kimberly had previously been talking to at the bar. Nellie and the man sat at a table across the room from Freese. Freese observed the man take something out of his pocket, pour it on the table and line it up on the table. Kimberly said the man was going to snort coke with Nellie. The man then bent ever the table and made a loud snorting noise. Nellie then bent over the table and made a loud snorting noise. While this was occurring, Officer Ashley had come into the back room to look for Freese. When Ashley entered, Kimberly said, "Hey go over there and tell them you are a cop." Ashley observed Nellie and her male companion lining up a white powder on the table and then heard and observed a loud sniffing of the powder. This is typically the way cocaine is snorted or sniffed. Although the lights were fairly dim, there was sufficient light to observe people completely across the room. While on the licensed premises, Officer Ashley observed numerous other patrons and customers make drug purchases in the lounge. On the first three drug purchases made by Ashley, the dancer selling the drugs initiated the discussion and offered to sell drugs prior to any inquiry about drugs by Ashley. The Strip Ahoy is a topless bar and during the dates discussed above, the women involved in the drug purchases were working as dancers at the lounge. Each of the dancers was required to sign a contract before coming to work at the lounge. They were not paid a salary but danced solely for tips. They received no benefits such as workmen's compensation or Social Security from the Respondent. The contracts (see Respondent's composite Exhibit 2A through 2H) stated that the dancers were of three dances on a stage in an order established by Carl, the doorman. Carl Stone, the doorman and manager, would in the evenings, use a microphone and sound system to inform each dancer when it was her time to dance. While they were not dancing on the stage, the dancers would sit with patrons and perform table or lap dances for them in the back room. The lounge retained the right to approve or disapprove of a particular dancer's dance routine. Carl Stone supervised the dancers, and along with the owners, had the right to fire any dancer. Patrons, at least in part, came to the lounge to see the dancers perform. The lounge decided which dancers worked days and which dancers worked at night. Each dancer was given a copy of the House Rules and a copy was posted in the dressing room. These rules provided: Keep yourself well groomed at all times. Have attractive attire to wear when not performing. No Husbands, Boyfriends, ETC! Allowed while working. No one is to frequent club during off hours. No smoking or drinking while on stage. Only one girl on the stage at a time. No talking while on stage performing. Do not leave club except in street clothes. No sitting on stage bar. No more than two Ladies in dressing room at a time. (Except during beginning or ending of shift.) Any Dancer threatening another will be dismissed. Do not engage in any act which could be considered Lewd or Lascivious. Any Dancer stealing from a customer or other employees will be dismissed and prosecuted. Anyone suspected of Using, Buying or Selling of Drugs will be dismissed immediately. NO LOUD TALKING OR SHOUTING IN ROOM. KEEP YOUR VOICES DOWN. NO WHISTLING!! The individual who was responsible for the management and supervision of the club in the evenings from 7:00 p.m. to closing time at 2:00 a.m. was Carl Stone. He controlled the conduct of the dancers. Carl Stone was employed by the lounge as a salaried employee from April 1983 to August 26, 1983. In August, 1983, Carl Stone was also required to enter into a contract which stated he was an independent contractor and not entitled to a salary or other benefits. He was subject to the supervision, orders, advise, and direction of Respondent and was to provide management of the exotic dancers. Mr. Stone performed the same function and duties after this agreement as he did before the agreement was executed. When the owners were absent from the lounge at night, Carl was the sole person in charge. He worked at the door and collected the cover charge from 7:00 p.m. until 1:15 a.m. The first eight months of operation, Tom Whitaker was in the club almost every night. However, the last four months of operation, he generally did not come into the club until midnight or 1:00 a.m. On Friday and Saturday nights, there were two waitresses in the lounge. On other nights there was only one waitress. The waitresses were responsible for serving drinks in the lounge area and the back room and were the persons responsible for checking on the activities of the dancers in the back room on a regular basis. The back room could not be observed from the bar area, the office, or the entrance area. The door of the office has a two-way mirror which permits the owners to observe most of the main lounge from the office. During the year 1983, the owners gave polygraph exams on two occasions to all employees. One waitress, named Elizabeth Chader, had previously worked as a dancer and was fired after failing the polygraph on two questions relating to money and knowledge of drug activity on the licensed premises. This woman was also known as Luwanda and is the individual who sold drugs referred to in Count 7 discussed above. One of the owners, Jack Leverett, was questioned by the police about this dancer some time after she was fired and he gave them all the information he had. Dancers were not considered employees and were only polygraphed if a specific complaint was received. No dancers were polygraphed regarding drug activity. One dancer was fired after a bartender caught her with a needle in her arm in the restroom and reported it to the owners. Carl fired one dancer named Nikki after he observed her erratic behavior and found needle tracks on her arm. On at least two occasions, the owners called the Pinellas Park Police Department regarding suspected drug activity by patrons in the club. No such calls were made about any of the dancers at the club. When the club initially opened, a lot of "bikers" or motorcycle gang members frequented the club. The owners used a strict dress code and discouragement to eliminate these types of patrons from the club. The main lounge area and back room are dimly lit with candles on each table. The stage in the main lounge has lights in the floor and running red lights above. There are also lights in the bar area. The dim lighting makes it more difficult to observe the activities of dancers and patrons in the bar. The number of dancers in the club varied from 6 to 10 per shift. Typically, over an entire shift between 100 to 150 patrons would come into the club.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations as charged in the Notice to Show Cause and suspending Beverage License No. 82-661 for a period of nine (9) months and imposing a civil penalty of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph F. MeDermott, Esq. 544 First Avenue North Division of Administrative St. Petersburg, Florida Michael N. Athanason, Esq. 500-First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's beverage licensure should be subjected to sanctions for allegedly selling alcoholic beverages to a minor and what if any penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating licensure, and practice under that licensure, of alcoholic beverage-selling entities in the State of Florida, including administration of the laws and rules related to the selling of alcoholic beverages by restaurant businesses. The Respondent is an entity licensed and domiciled in the State of Florida and authorized to sell alcoholic beverages under license number 55-00306, Series 2-COP. The Respondent is subject to the Division's regulatory jurisdiction. The subject license allows the Respondent to make sales "by the drink" for consumption on the premises at the restaurant business located at 1766 S. Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. On October 22, 2002, Ms. Deidre Kaye Miller, then 18 years of age, was employed as an I.A. by the Petitioner Agency for the purpose of attempting to purchase beer at the Respondent's restaurant. She was paid a total of $35.00 for her services as an undercover operative that day by the Division. She was given instructions by Agent Edwards and Agent Maxwell to attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage from the Respondent. Ms. Miller was told that if asked for identification she was to show her valid Florida Driver's License, if asked her age to tell her correct age and not to engage in any extensive conversation with anyone. On October 22, 2002, Ms. Miller entered the restaurant and walked to the left of the entrance where the bar was located. A waitress asked what she wanted and she told her she wanted a Corona (Beer). After Ms. Miller ordered the beer from the waitress the owner and Respondent Mr. Wong came over and asked for her identification. She provided her driver's license as an I.D. to Mr. Wong. As he was checking her driver's license the waitress, Tabitha Cornett, opened the Corona and set it on the counter so that it would be ready when Mr. Wong approved giving Ms. Miller the beer. The point on the bar where the beer was placed was approximately 16 feet away from where Mr. Wong and Ms. Miller were having the conversation about her I.D. Mr. Wong viewed Ms. Miller's Driver License I.D. for 30 or 45 seconds. The driver's license had her correct name and date of birth, which was in 1984, and a statement printed on the license which said "Under 21 until 09-02-05." Mr. Wong allowed the beer to be served to Ms. Miller. Ms. Miller took the beer and placed it on a table near the bar. She then indicated to the waitress that she was going to call friends to meet her and walked outside the restaurant, leaving the beer on the table. In restaurant sales situations, IAs are instructed to depart the premises once they have been served alcohol. Generally payment will not be tendered because, in restaurant situations, the law and licensure calls for consumption on the premises and it is customary to consume the alcohol and pay for at the end of one's stay at the restaurant. In the instant situation neither Ms. Miller nor anyone else ever paid for the beer in question. Mr. Wong acknowledged in a due diligence statement taken at 5:30 p.m., on the day in question October 22, 2002 (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four) that he checked the I.D. but he wasn't wearing his glasses and he thought it said that Ms. Miller was born in 1964. He asked her, "You were born in 64?" He said in his statement that Ms. Miller did not reply to him and then he states (in his due diligence statement) that he told her that she was too young for that I.D. and again she said nothing. He again asked her if this was her I.D. and she said nothing. He handed it back to her. He then said in the statement: "I did not want to insult someone so I allowed it served." In other words he questioned whether she was old enough based upon the I.D. he saw; believing it to say 1964 because he did not have his glasses on, but also believing that she appeared too young for that I.D. Ms. Miller left the premises and Agent Edwards and Agent Maxwell entered the premises and informed Mr. Wong that he had just allowed service of alcohol to a minor. Thereafter Mr. Wong was placed under arrest handcuffed, and taken to the Nassau County Jail. Mr. Wong had never had any beverage-related offense on his record prior to that time. No investigation or prosecution concerning his business had ever occurred up to that point. A criminal prosecution was instituted against him concerning this same incident and facts, which resulted in a jury verdict of acquittal. The totality of the evidence shows that although Mr. Wong did not actually serve Ms. Miller, he did allow a beer to be served to her. She was under 21 years of age. Mr. Wong testified that even though one person checks identification, any employee can open a beer and place it on the counter or service bar. Ms. Cornett did so in this case, placing the beer at the far end of the service bar from where Mr. Wong and Ms. Miller were conversing concerning her I.D. This allows the beer to be ready once the person checking the I.D. authorizes the sale. In the situation at hand, Ms. Cornett opened the beer, placed in on the bar and Mr. Wong then went through the door away from the bar into the main part of the restaurant. Ms. Miller, the I.A., then took the beer from the bar and placed it on the table and told Ms. Cornett that she was going outside to meet her friends or to call her friends. After that occurrence the other agents named above came in, explained the situation to Mr. Wong, and arrested him during the course of which discussion he made the above-referenced statement. Mr. Wong never touched the beer in question and Ms. Cornett never actually physically handed it to Ms. Miller, but both Mr. Wong and Ms. Cornett allowed Ms. Miller to take the beer from the bar and place it on her table, thus taking the beer into her own custody and control at least temporarily, even though no money was exchanged in return for the beer.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, finding that the Respondent violated Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that he be required to pay a $250.00 fine to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Pardieck, Assistant General Counsel P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2003. Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Gary Barker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, Florida 32011 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Prior to October 1977 the Nite Gallery, Inc., a nightclub featuring topless dancers, held license 2-COP No.58-1175 and the stock was owned by Sherrill Ann Perkins and Dorothy Jean Copeland. The owners were anxious to sell and placed an advertisement which was seen by Robert Waldorf, who visited the bar to discuss price. Waldorf was accompanied by Richard Bragg and Mary Jo Kelly. Following discussion, Waldorf, who did all the talking for the purchasers, agreed to purchase the business for $12,000 and gave each of the owners a check for $1,000, receipt of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. On 13 October 1977 the operation of the bar was taken over by Waldorf, although the two owners were still holders of the license. The $1,000 checks given as down payment were on the account of Sharon's Novelties, at Winter Park National Bank, an account on which Waldorf was the only one authorized to sign checks. During the next few weeks, Waldorf wrote numerous checks on this same account to pay for various equipment, supplies and labor for the Nite Gallery. In Application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License stamped 8 November 1977 (Exhibit 6), Dorothy Copeland signed the Affidavit of Seller stating the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly who signed the affidavit of buyer that "no other person except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made." Nowhere in the application was reference made to Waldorf. In 1973 Waldorf was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of offenses involving the transportation in interstate commerce of forged securities and was sentenced to three years confinement with a three years probation period running concurrently with the confinement. (Exhibits 1 and 2). As a result of these felony convictions, Waldorf is ineligible to hold an alcoholic beverage license in Florida. At the time of these transactions, Waldorf and Mary Jo Kelly had been living together for approximately two years. She worked as a dancer and B-girl in various nightclubs, usually in a club where Waldorf also worked. Kelly had no experience or knowledge respecting the operation of a bar or any other business, and all decisions, including the decision to buy the bar and all management decisions thereafter, were made by Waldorf. The sellers, Copel and and Perkins, were informed that Waldorf was the one purchasing the bar and that the license was being put in Kelly's name because Waldorf was ineligible to hold the license. This information came from Waldorf. On November 2, 1977 Waldorf signed a promissory note (Exhibit 5) promising to pay Copeland $300 per month until the balance of the $5,000 owed her for the purchase of the Nite Gallery was paid. Immediately prior to and following the transfer of the license to Respondent, Kelly danced at the Nite Gallery occasionally but otherwise had little, if anything, to do with the business. Waldorf did the hiring and firing, kept the accounts, signed checks for the bills owed, zeroed out the cash register, provided the bartender with funds each day to open the bar, and held himself out and performed all the functions of an owner in fact. Waldorf made arrangements for radio advertising for the Nite Gallery and paid for this service. (Exhibit 10). In his application for telephone service ordered 4-2-78 for his residence, Waldorf stated his occupation for the past two years was owner of the Nite Gallery. (Exhibit 12). After the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly, Waldorf opened another bank account on which both he and Kelly were authorized to sign checks. Kelly often signed blank checks which Waldorf completed to pay various expenses of the Nite Gallery. Kelly made no deposits in this account, maintained no record of expenditures from this account, and she had no information regarding the disposition of, or the amount of, money passing through the cash register at the Nite Gallery. Respondent testified that she provided all of the money used to purchase the Nite Gallery and to pay the initial bills from her earnings as a dancer. She also testified that this same source of funds provided the capital needed to buy a house, boat and two or three cars including a Continental Mark IV driven by Waldorf. Respondent further testified that she made $400 per week from tips as a dancer at the. Fiesta Club in Orlando immediately before purchasing the Nite Gallery and that she made $400-$500 per week in tips at the Nite Gallery. Her testimony was that the dancers worked on tips only. Exhibit 8, which is a cash and expense report for the Nite Gallery for December 1, 1977, shows that four dancers shared $17 for their work that evening. Although this was shown on Exhibit 8 as Commissions, other testimony indicated it was accumulated at $1 for each drink the customers bought for four dancers in one evening. These figures strongly militate against Respondent receiving $400-$500 per week in tips at this establishment. Respondent's testimony that her earnings provided the funds for a house, boat, and three cars in addition to the costs involved in opening the Nite Gallery is simply not credible. The testimony by Orange County Sheriff's deputies that one of them was struck by an employee of the Nite Gallery while on the premises was unrebutted All of the witnesses, including Respondent, testified that Respondent performed no role in the day-to-day management of the Nite Gallery and that Respondent did not have the experience or ability to run a business. At the time Respondent surrendered her license to Petitioner in March, 1979 she voluntarily submitted to questioning and the tape of that interrogation and the transcript of the tape were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 21 and Therein Respondent gave her age as 20 years old and stated that Waldorf had directed her absence from the first hearing. At Waldorf's direction she went to Pennsylvania and entered the hospital for a short period so she could truthfully advise her attorney that she was in the hospital in Pennsylvania during the March hearing. During this interrogation Kelly stated that she received no income from the Nite Gallery, that Waldorf ran the business, and that she had no knowledge of how the business was doing.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully obstructed and/or hindered the inspection of his licensed premises by law enforcement officers and allowed or otherwise condoned the sale of alcoholic beverages in violation of a municipal ordinance concerning the hours of sale and, if so, what disciplinary action is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state agency charged with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in Florida. Respondent, El Greco, Inc., d/b/a El Greco is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 63-00458, series 4-COP. Respondent's premises is located at 1109 East Main Street in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent's president is John Houvardis (herein Respondent). Petitioner issued two official warnings to Respondent on October 19, 1992. One warning was for a violation of Section 562.41, Florida Statutes, to wit, hindering or obstructing a law enforcement officer from conducting a search of the licensed premises which included locking a law enforcement officer from the premises. The other warning was for an alleged violation of the Lakeland City Ordinance relating to the sale, serving, or consumption of alcoholic beverages after the legal hours of sale. On January 29, 1994, Officer Ed Mingus of the Lakeland Police Department was dispatched to Respondent's premises at approximately 2:29 a.m. Officer Mingus was dispatched to investigate a complaint of "loud noises and sale of alcoholic beverages after hours". When Officer Mingus arrived at Respondent's premises on January 29, 1994, he heard noise coming from the licensed premises and observed several cars in the parking lot. The front door of the licensed premises was locked and Officer Mingus knocked to gain entry. An unidentified person answered the door and Officer Mingus identified himself as a police officer and requested entrance. Within seconds after requesting entrance, Respondent opened the door and allowed Officer Mingus inside the premises. At the time, approximately five employees were cleaning the licensed premises and no alcoholic beverages were observed either being served or consumed by Officer Mingus. Officer Mingus gained entry to the premises within five minutes of first knocking on the door. Officer Mingus suspected that there were other people inside and, in this regard, he asked Respondent if there were, in fact, other people in the licensed premises. Officer Mingus told Respondent of his suspicion that he was violating the hours of sale whereupon Respondent reiterated of his awareness of the ordinance prohibiting sale of alcoholic beverages after hours and insisted that he was not violating the ordinance. Officer Mingus thereafter requested permission from Respondent to search the licensed premises and Respondent consented to a search. Officer Mingus observed approximately nine or ten patrons in the kitchen area. Officer Mingus again reiterated his suspicion that Respondent was violating the municipal laws concerning the hours of sale and gave Respondent a verbal warning that if he was caught violating the ordinance, he would face criminal and administrative sanctions. Detective Denny Phillips of the Lakeland Police Department conducted a sight investigation of Respondent's premises on January 29, 1994, both prior to and while Officer Mingus was inside the licensed premises. Detective Phillips was across the street from the licensed premises with an unobstructed view of the premises on January 29, 1994. On February 26, 1994, Detective Phillips continued his investigation of Respondent's licensed premises. Detective Phillips instructed Officer Ed Cain, also a patrol officer for the Lakeland Police Department, to enter the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Officer Cain was instructed to attempt to remain in the licensed premises after 2:00 a.m., and to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Officer Cain entered the licensed premises at approximately 12:30 a.m. on February 26, 1994, and observed a crowded lounge consisting mostly of college-aged patrons. Respondent was observed inside the premises. Officer Cain observed a large number of the patrons leaving the premises by 1:00 a.m., and Respondent's employees escorted the remaining patrons from the licensed premises at approximately 1:45 a.m. Officer Cain was not asked to leave the licensed premises and he remained along with approximately four or five other patrons. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Officer Cain ordered a shot of Sambuca, an alcoholic beverage described as a licorice liqueur, from a female employee. Officer Cain placed $2.00 for the beverage on the counter of the bar. Officer Cain observed that same employee placing the money in a bank bag containing the contents of the cash register. Officer Cain is familiar with alcoholic beverages and what they smell and taste like and has consumed alcoholic beverages prior to the evening of February 26, 1994. Officer Cain exited the licensed premises and notified Detective Phillips that he had purchased an alcoholic beverage from an employee after 2:00 a.m. Detective Phillips entered the licensed premises and met with Respondent who was still in the licensed premises. Detective Phillips advised Respondent that undercover officer Cain had purchased an alcoholic beverage from an employee after 2:00 a.m. and that Respondent and the employee would be cited for violation of the municipal ordinance respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages after hours. Respondent usually has extra food left over from functions that he has at the licensed premises from time to time and the employees and others who were in the kitchen area of the licensed premises after 2:00 a.m., on January 29, 1994, were eating some of that extra food.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing a civil penalty against Respondent in the amount of one thousand ($1,000) dollars for the above-referenced violation (sale of an alcoholic beverage after hours). DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 4, rejected, unnecessary and not probative. Paragraph 10, adopted as modified, paragraph 5, Recommended Order. Paragraph 16, adopted as modified, paragraph 8, Recommended Order. Paragraph 20, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 11 and 12, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, rejected as being a recitation of testimony, and not proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Houvardas, President El Greco, Inc. 1109 East Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Richard Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
