Findings Of Fact On July 6, 1977, petitioner caused respondent to be listed, for alleged noncompliance with Section 561.42(3), Florida Statutes (1977), in a notice to distributors of alcoholic beverages, according to which respondent was "prohibited from purchasing . . . any alcoholic beverages except for cash until further notice." Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. On July 29, 1977, Anthony J. Foglietta purchased ten cases of beer for respondent from Universal Brands, Inc., for which he wrote a check in the amount of sixty-four and one half dollars ($64.50). Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. In a separate transaction on the same day, Mr. Foglietta purchased three cases of beer for respondent from Universal Brands, Inc., for which he wrote a check in the amount of nineteen dollars and thirty-five cents ($19.35). Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. For the same amount, on August 9, 1977, Mr. Foglietta purchased three cases of beer for respondent from Universal Brands, Inc., which he paid for by check. Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. Two days later Mr. Foglietta bought three more cases of beer for respondent, which he paid for in cash. On the night of August 5, 1977, Mr. Foglietta purchased 18 to 20 bottles of liquor for respondent from The Beacon Bar, paying with a check in the amount of two hundred forty dollars and seventeen cents ($240.17). Petitioner's exhibit No. 10. On the same date, Mr. Foglietta purchased other liquor for respondent from Three Spirits, Inc., which he paid for with a check in the amount of one hundred seventy-nine dollars and twenty-six cents ($179.26). Petitioner's exhibit No. 11. Four days later Mr. Foglietta, bought for respondent additional alcoholic beverages from Three Spirits, Inc., which he paid for with a check in the amount of sixty-one dollars ($61.00), Petitioner's exhibit No. 12. On August 30, 1977, respondent's bar was well stocked with alcoholic beverages, although the notice issued on July 6, 1977, had not been rescinded. On July 14, 1977, Mr. Foglietta and Mr. Joseph P. Sgroi signed a corporate resolution, which was stamped with the seal of The Hospital Disco, Inc., and left with Landmark First National Bank; the resolution recites that Messrs. Foglietta and Sgroi were operating vice-president and president, respectively, of The Hospital Disco, Inc. Petitioner's exhibit No. 14. Messrs. Foglietta and Sgroi also signed a second corporate resolution to like effect. Petitioner's exhibit No. 13. Petitioner's records indicate that James C. Lorigo owned all of respondent's stock and was respondent's president, vice-president and secretary at the time of the hearing. Petitioner's records did not reflect the filing of any application for a license transfer, at the time of the hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) against respondent. That petitioner revoke respondent's license on the thirtieth day after entry of this order unless respondent shall by then have complied with Rules 7A- 2.07 and 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code, and unless by then Mr. Foglietta and any other person associated with respondent who is required by law to do so shall comply with Section 561.17, Florida Statutes (1977). DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 The Hospital Disco, Inc. t/a Carmen's Restaurant and Disco 928 N. Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida F. Ronald Mastriana, Esquire 2750 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued October 20, 1989 by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation and filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this case, OB's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. held a Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division) license for the premises known as OB's Restaurant and Lounge (OB's), alcoholic beverage license number 74-2421 SRX, Series 4-COP, located at 913 Highway 17, Pierson, Volusia County, Florida. Christine Shuter O'Brien, president of OB's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. owns 100 per cent of the stock in the corporation. Ms. O'Brien has owned and operated OB's since July 1989. Camiel Long, born July 3, 1969, who was 20 years of age on October, 1989, works with law enforcement investigators of District 12 of the Division, Daytona Beach, Florida, as an Investigation Aide in determining whether licensed establishments are selling alcoholic beverage within their licensed premises to persons under the age of 21 years. On Saturday, October 7, 1989, Long met with Investigator Ron Sullivan for the purpose of Sullivan explaining the procedure used to effect underage investigation. At this time, Sullivan explained to Long that he would enter a licensed premises first and Long was to follow a few minutes later. Upon entry of the licensed premises Long was to approach the appropriate point of sale and ask to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Long was instructed to carry his own personal Florida Driver's license and to present the driver's license upon request. Long's Florida driver's license depicted him as having a mustache. The photographs taken on October 7, 1989 depicts Long as being clean shaven, without a mustache. One of the targeted licensed premises for October 7, 1989 was OB's because of a complaint received from the local police department. At approximately 9:45 p.m. on October 7, 1989, Sullivan and Long arrived at OB's parking lot and Sullivan then entered OB's, with Long following in approximately five minutes. Kevin Cox was in charge of checking identification (ID) at the door of OB's to keep out underage persons, and was in fact checking ID's at the door of OB's on Saturday night, October 7, 1989. On Saturday night, October 7, 1989, at the time Long entered OB's and purchased the beer, the bar was quite busy, some customers were playing pool and a band was playing, as was normal on Friday and Saturday night On Saturday night, October 7, 1989 there were several signs over the entrance to the bar at OB's indicating that proper identification was required and that it would be checked When Long entered OB's, Cox was checking several other persons' ID cards, and did not stop Long to check his ID as he "skirted" around him because he appeared to be about the same age as those persons Cox was checking who were in the 24-25 year-old bracket according to their ID cards. After entering OB's, Long found a seat at the bar, sat down, and ordered a Budweiser beer from Christine Shuter O'Brien who was tending bar at that time, along with Lorraine Ware. Ms. O'Brien opened a long-neck 12 ounce bottle of Budweiser beer, an alcoholic beverage, and served the beer to Long who paid Ms. O'Brien for the beer. Ms. O'Brien did not question Long's age or require any type of ID from him before selling and serving him the beer. Upon receiving the beer and his change, Long turned and handed the beer to Sullivan, and Long left the premises. Sullivan identified himself to Ms. O'Brien and advised her that he had observed her sell an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 years. Sullivan then requested that they move to area where they could speak. After moving to another area, Sullivan presented O'Brien with a Notice to Appear, in lieu of arrest. Ms. O'Brien has had no previous Beverage Law violation in any establishment that she has owned, including one in DeLand and one in Illinois. Ms. O'Brien's policy concerning the serving of alcoholic beverages is that if someone appears to be of age (21 years or older), then it is not necessary to request an ID to confirm their age. Both Kevin Cox and Lorraine Ware was aware of this policy, as well as other employees. Lorraine Ware, through experience and having taken a course taught by the Division concerning serving underage persons, is aware that it is her responsibility to avoid serving an underage person alcoholic beverage. Ware has also received instruction from Ms. O'Brien not to sell alcoholic beverages to an underage person. Long's appearance on Saturday night, October 7, 1989 and on the day of the hearing (February 13, 1990), four months later, was very similar, except for his clothing, and would cause an ordinary prudent person to question whether he was 21 years of age or older. Long's appearance should have caused both Cox and Ms. O'Brien to require him to confirm his age by some type of identification. O'Brien's failure to require confirmation of Long's age before selling him the beer on Saturday night, October 7, 1989 showed a lack of due diligence on her part, notwithstanding her presumption that Cox had checked Long's ID at the door, or the fact that she had several signs posted concerning the checking of ID's.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the sale, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 562.011(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for such violation assess a civil penalty of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 21st day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6962 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 5.-9 Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 12, 13, 14 and 12, respectively. 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 15. 11.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 8, 18, 9 and 18, respectively. 16 Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-3. Covered in Preliminary Statement. Covered in beginning paragraphs. Covered in Preliminary Statement and in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5, as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 12 and 14, as modified, except for the last sentence which was rejected because O'Brien was not arrested but given Notice To Appear in lieu of an arrest. 9.-14. Rejected as being more of a restatement of testimony than proposed findings of fact, but if stated as proposed findings of fact then adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10, 12 and 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399- Joseph A. Scarlett, Esquire 208 West Howry Avenue Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be approved or whether it should be disapproved for the reason set forth in the letter of disapproval dated April 13, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the evidence admitted into evidence, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to process applications for alcoholic beverage licenses. On January 10, 1990, the Petitioner, Mary L. Hooks, submitted an application to the Department for a series 1-APS alcoholic beverage license. Petitioner sought the license for a business known as Mary's Bait & Tackle which is located at 110 Conners Highway, Canal Point, Palm Beach County, Florida. According to records submitted to the Department, Petitioner's mailing address was P.O. Box 604, Canal Point, Florida, 33438. In response to questions posed on the alcoholic beverage application form, Petitioner disclosed that she was convicted of a felony, the delivery of marijuana, on January 22, 1986. That charge and conviction stemmed from activities which had purportedly occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner's civil rights were restored by executive order entered December 2, 1988. On April 13, 1990, the Department notified the Petitioner that her application for license no. 60-5357, 1-APS had been disapproved. That notice provided the following reason and authority for the disapproval: Authority 561.15(1)(2) and 112.011, Florida Statutes Reason(s) Applicant, Mary L. Hooks, has been convicted of a felony within the last past fifteen years and is not believed to be of good moral character. While Mrs. Hooks has a Restoration of Civil Rights, the crime for which she was convicted directly relates to the alcoholic beverage laws and, for this reason, the application is being denied. Petitioner timely filed a challenge to the notice of disapproval, but did not appear for the formal hearing. No evidence was presented on her behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco entered a final order denying Petitioner's application for a series 1-APS license. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-2916 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record or hearsay. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: D. Lance Langston Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Mary L. Hooks P.O. Box 605 Canal Point, FL 33438 Cpt. Debbie L. Gray Elisha Newton Dimick Building 111 Georgia Ave., Room 207 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Leonard Ivey, Director Dept. of Business Regulation Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is the state agency charged with regulating the alcohol beverage and tobacco laws in Florida. Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall's Champagne Lounge, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-00231, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as McCall's Champagne Lounge which is located at 618 22nd Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. On or about February 11, 1992, Officer T. Brockman of the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) met with Respondent as licensee to discuss illegal activities which were ongoing in and around his licensed premises. Officer Brockman notified Respondent that controlled substances were being sold in and about the licensed premises and that underaged persons were being permitted to consume alcoholic beverages. Respondent was also notified of other illegal activities including weapons and firearms violations which were occurring on Friday and Saturday nights. On or about July 26, 1992, the Division's Special Agent, Cummings and other undercover law enforcement agents went to Respondent's premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, Cummings met a patron known as "Andy Griffin" regarding the purchase of marijuana. As a result of that meeting, Special Agent Cummings handed Andy Griffin $10.00 in exchange for a small plastic bag containing marijuana. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. At the time, two employees were located a few feet away from the site where the marijuana was delivered. At the time, several patrons were also openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On or about July 31, 1992, Cummings again reentered the licensed premises with other undercover law enforcement agents in furtherance of their investigation. While inside the premises, Special Agent Cummings met with an unknown patron regarding the purchase of "crack" cocaine. Subsequently Special Agent Cummings handed the unknown patron $10.00 in exchange for a small quantity of a substance which was analyzed and found to be cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At the time, several patrons inside the premises were openly smoking marijuana in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On August 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, Special Agent Cummings and other law enforcement agents reentered the licensed premises as part of their ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, on each ocassion except August 8, Special Agent Cummings purchased narcotics for $10.00. On each occasion the substance purchased by Special Agent Cummings was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. During the August 8, 1992 visit by Special Agent Cummings and the other law enforcement agents, several patrons were observed openly consuming marijuana in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At no time did Respondent or his employees make efforts to prevent that activity from occurring inside the licensed premises. On each occasion while in the premises, Special Agent Cummings observed several patrons openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of employees. At the outset of the narcotics investigation, Officer Tim Brockman met with Respondent and advised him that he was a community police officer who was on call and would be walking the "beat" in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that he was there to improve the quality of life and that he would be in contact with community leaders to try to get a handle on the extensive criminal activity which appeared to be ongoing in and around the licensed premises. As part of their efforts, Officer Brockman tried to develop a crime watch as the community residents felt threatened by the extensive criminal activity ongoing in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman advised Respondent that their primary goal would be to try to rid the area of drug sales. Respondent was specifically advised of the extensive drug activities that were ongoing both inside and outside of the licensed premises. Respondent's cooperation and assistance was requested by Officer Brockman and be agreed to assist. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that loitering was a problem outside the building and that alcoholic sales were being made in the building to minors. Finally, Officer Brockman told Respondent that he had observed patrons purchasing alcoholic beverages in the bar and who would later bring the open containers outside into the parking areas in and around the building in apparent violations of the local ordinances. Officer Brockman analyzed the phone calls which had been logged through the St. Petersburg Police Departments switchboard from the lounge and for law enforcement assistance in that area. The number of calls to Respondent's lounge greatly exceed the number of calls for law enforcement assistance in other areas of the City. Josephine McCall, Respondent's wife, denies that she ever saw drugs in the licensed premises. Ms. McCall maintains that Respondent would "come home sick as he could not stand the smell of marijuana." Thomas E. Hines, is a patron who occasionally frequents the bar during the early evening hours. During the times that he has frequented the club, he has not witnessed ellicit drugs being sold in the area nor would he recognize "reefer" if he saw it. Kathy Burgess has been a barmaid at Respondent's lounge in excess of thirteen years. Ms. Burgess contends that Respondent did not allow drug sales to occur and that if such sales were made, she told employees to "get them out of the premises." Bonny Bostick serves as a janitor at Respondent's lounge and works on the admissions door on Friday and Saturday nights. Bostick recalls having to get Respondent to curtail drug activities on four or five occasions. 0/ To the extent that the testimony of Respondent and witnesses J. McCall, T. Hines, K. Burgess and B. Bostick is in conflict with that of Officers Cummings and Brockman, their testimony is not credible. The testimony of Officers Cummings and Brockman is more credible and is more worthy of belief as they had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. At all times throughout the investigation, Respondent was in the licensed premises while the illegal activities referred to herein were taking place. Respondent's employees either ignored or overlooked illegal activities as it was occurring inside the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order prevailing that Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall Champagne Lounge, license number 62-00231, series 2-COP be revoked. It is further recommended that this location be deemed ineligible for having an alcoholic beverage license issued for the maximum period allowable under the alcoholic beverage law. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1992 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 4th day of November, 1992.
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
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice To Show Cause and Administrative Actions filed in each of these consolidated causes and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact In May of 1992 Petitioner received an application for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license, license number 60-05383. That license is a series 2-COP license, authorizing the limited sale and possession of alcoholic beverages, only beer and wine, on the premises. The application requested the transfer of the license to Samul Luc and Erick Martial d/b/a Universal Restaurant, 700 Datura Street, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. That application was denied because Martial had a disqualifying narcotics conviction of March 16, 1989. Luc and Martial were notified of that disapproval by letter dated November 4, 1992. Thereafter, Martial and Luc met with Captain Deborah Gray, the district supervisor of Petitioner's West Palm Beach office. She specifically advised Luc and Martial that Martial could have no financial interest at all in the business and could not be listed on the license or even in the lease of the licensed premises. She advised them that Martial could only be a salaried employee. In December 1992, Luc filed a sworn application for that license. This time, the applicant was listed as Samul Luc d/b/a Universal Restaurant, 700 Datura Street. Only Luc's name appeared in that application, and no other person was listed as having an interest in the business. In particular, Martial was not listed as an applicant or as someone having an interest in Universal Restaurant. Respondent paid the $100.00 fee for a temporary license with a check drawn on the First Union National Bank of Florida. The face of the check indicated that the account holder was Erick Martial d/b/a Universal Restaurant. Thereafter, whenever a problem arose regarding Universal Restaurant, it was always Erick Martial who came in to see Captain Gray. Captain Gray met with Erick Martial three or four times. The only meeting attended by Luc was the first meeting with Captain Gray at which she explained to both Martial and Luc that Martial could have no financial interest in the business. Accordingly, Captain Gray opened an investigation to ascertain if Martial did have an interest in Universal Restaurant, the licensed premises. The checking account used by Respondent to pay for his temporary license was opened on June 3, 1992, under the names of Samul Luc and Erick Martial d/b/a Universal Restaurant. The account's signature card was updated on August 18, 1993, and thereafter continued to include the names and signatures of Samul Luc and Erick Martial. That account has remained open and active through the time of the final hearing in this cause. On January 27, 1993, Special Agent Charlene Self went to the licensed premises to investigate the possible undisclosed interest of Martial. Luc was not present. Self asked to speak to the person in charge, and Martial said that he was that person. He further advised her that he was Luc's partner in the business. Self told him that he was not qualified to be a partner in the business, and Martial said that he was not aware of that. On August 3, 1993, Special Agent James Griffin went to the licensed premises to conduct an inspection. In the course of his inspection, he discovered and seized a partially-full bottle of vodka from behind the bar. The label on the bottle clearly identified the bottle as containing vodka, a distilled spirit, and Griffin's examination verified that the bottle contained vodka, a beverage not permitted to be sold or possessed under a 2-COP series license. Martial came in and identified himself to Griffin as a co-owner of the establishment. Martial told Griffin that the bottle of vodka was his personal bottle and that he knew that the beverage license of Universal Restaurant was for beer and wine only. Griffin returned to the premises on August 25, 1993, at the request of the West Palm Beach Police Department after being advised that Police Officer Tureaud had discovered a bottle of whiskey at the licensed premises. In the course of Griffin's inspection, he discovered and seized a three-quarters full bottle of Haitian rum. The label on the bottle clearly identified the bottle as containing rum, a distilled spirit, and Griffin's examination verified that the bottle contained Haitian rum, a beverage not permitted to be sold or possessed under a 2-COP series license. During that inspection, Martial came in and again identified himself as a co-owner of the restaurant. In response to Griffin's inquiries regarding the presence of the Haitian rum, Martial stated that the rum was used in cooking. Griffin then asked to see the restaurant's menus to see which food items called for rum in the cooking process, but Martial advised him that there were no menus listing food items that included rum as an ingredient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05383, Series 2-COP, and Assessing against Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 31st day of May 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. Samul Luc Universal Restaurant 700 Datura Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 John J. Harris, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Lee Howell (Howell), holds alcoholic beverage license number 46-01252, Series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 2712 Towles Street, Fort Myers, Florida, known as Mr. B's Lounge. Violation of Local Ordinance Lee County Ordinance 76-9, as amended by Ordinance 79-1, provides in pertinent part: All places or establishments within the unincorporated area of the county and lawfully licensed by the State Beverage Department of Florida, may sell or serve, or permit to be sold, served or consumed, any type of alcoholic beverage of any kind whatsoever for consumption both on or off the premises only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. of the following morning every day of the week, including Sundays. Howell was cited on or about July 1, 1989, for allegedly violating this "hours of sale" ordinance, but he was aquitted in August, 1989. In 1990, Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) Deputy James Nygaard warned Howell a half dozen times not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about December 28, 1990, Nygaard cited Howell for allegedly violating the ordinance by allowing a patron to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises after hours. Howell was tried and acquitted because it was not proven that the patron was drinking an alcoholic beverage. After successive reassignments to another patrol zone and to work as a detective, Nygaard was reassigned to patrol the East Zone in January, 1995. Beginning in January, 1995, Nygaard warned Howell twice not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about March 11, 1995, Nygaard cited Howell for violating the ordinance. Howell denied the charges, which still were pending in criminal court at the time of the final hearing. Nygaard testified that, this time (in contrast to the December, 1990, charge), he retained a sample of the contents of the container out of which the patron was drinking after 2 p.m. He testified that the sample was tested and found to be an alcoholic beverage. But the evidence shed no light on the extent of Howell's responsibility for the violation (e.g., how long after 2 p.m. the violation occurred, whether the violation was flagrant, whether Howell was even on the premises at the time of the violation or, if not, how diligent he was in training his employees on how to prevent violations of the "hours of sale" ordinance.) Howell denied that he sells or serves or allows alcoholic beverages to be served, sold or consumed in violation of the ordinance. Mr. B's remains open after 2 a.m. and patrons dance and listen to music, but Howell testified that they are not allowed to drink alcohol in the lounge after 2 a.m. Towles Street Near Mr. B's Mr. B's Lounge is in a section of Fort Myers, Florida, where in recent years violent crime increasingly has become an undeniably serious problem to area residents and the LCSO, which is the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. Towles Street is a two-lane road that runs between Edison Avenue and State Road 82 outside the city limits of the City of Fort Myers. During the evening hours, especially on weekends, large numbers of people park cars in the street and congregate in the area. Some of these people patronize Mr. B's, but many more congregate in the street and on both sides of the street up and down Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. A good number of these people drink too much and become noisy and violent. (Not all of the drinking takes place in Mr. B's, and not all of what is drunk comes from Mr. B's. Many of these people buy their alcoholic beverages elsewhere, or bring them from home, and drink their alcoholic beverages outside on and along Towles Street.) Many drive at recklessly high speeds up and down the street (when the streets are passable.) Loud music is played from stereos in car driving up and down the street and parked in the street. Some of these people, drunk or not, come to the area with the intention to engage in crime, violence and other disruptive conduct. More and more carry knives and firearms, or keep them in their cars, and many use or threaten to use their weapons. Assaults and armed robberies are common. The area around and including Mr. B's has become known to those who frequent it as a place to go to "hang out" and be a part of this violent scene. The violence, including stabbings and shootings, has become so prevalent that residents of the area who do not participate in the violence are afraid to leave their homes at night and, even in their homes, they are not completely safe from stray bullets. The violence and reputation for violence on Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's has become like no other place in Lee County. One LCSO deputy testified that he has heard more automatic weapon fire on duty at night on Towles Street than he heard during his entire experience as a member of the United States armed forces. Some deputies testified that, especially on weekends, there often are so many cars parked illegally in Towles Street that deputies patrolling the area or responding to complaints have to park their police vehicles on Edison Avenue or State Road 82 and walk in. They believe that, when they are seen approaching, the people congregating in the vicinity of Mr. B's lock their weapons in cars and that many of them enter Mr. B's to avoid the deputies. On occasion, the crowds of people encountered by LCSO deputies on Towles Street do not disperse so readily. Once, two deputies responding to a call for service in the vicinity of Mr. B's were assaulted before reaching the lounge and received injuries, including a broken jaw, requiring medical attention in the hospital. (Howell assisted the deputies in subduing the assailant.) On another occasion, it took deputies approximately an hour to control and disperse the crowd, during which time another call for LCSO assistance had to go unanswered for half an hour. Some of the incidents on Towles Street occur before 2 a.m., but many occur later, after the LCSO patrols have been reduced to a single shift. With fewer deputies on patrol, the violence on Towles Street becomes an even greater problem for law enforcement. By the time backup arrives in response to calls on Towles Street, practically no deputies remain available to patrol or respond to calls for service in the rest of the zone. The Licensed Premises No sketch of the licensed premises was introduced in evidence. The evidence was that Mr. B's faces Towles Street and that the front door opens onto a front step that is separated from the street by an unpaved strip of grass and dirt about seven feet wide. Until very recently, Mr. B's had only four parking spaces and did not have a parking lot. The precise extent of the licensed premises was not made clear from the evidence. During an inspection of the licensed premises on February 23, 1995, DABT Special Agent Odom recovered 141 spent gun shell casings in the vicinity of Mr. B's, including: seventy-four 74 9mm's; three 38 Specials; sixteen 16 357 Magnums; four 45-caliber; three 30-caliber; three 44 Magnum; one 10mm; 2 25- caliber; and nineteen 12 gauge shotgun shell cases. Some of these spent shell casings were recovered between the front door to Mr. B's and Towles Street. Most were recovered within 15 to 20 feet from the lounge building, but some were recovered as far as 20 yards away, including some that were found all the way across Towles Street on the opposite side of the street. Four were recovered under the cushion of a couch inside Mr. B's, but there was no evidence how they got there and no evidence that they were fired inside Mr. B's. Except for these four, it was not proven that any of the spent shell casings actually were recovered from the licensed premises themselves. From February, 1991, through October, 1994, there have been 135 calls for LCSO service arising out of incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the calls reported finding lost property or suspicious persons or were for the purpose of reporting some other information to the LCSO. Many of the calls were for relatively minor offenses, such as disturbances, trespassing, vandalism, nuisances, car accidents and highway obstruction. But many were for more serious crimes such as assaults, use or display of firearms, burglaries and robberies. Although many of these calls were placed from a telephone at Mr. B's, the evidence was not clear which, if any, of the incidents instigating calls actually occurred at Mr. B's. It seems clear that the police records use a reference to "Mr. B's" as as short hand way of describing Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's constituted violent crimes. Since 1988, there have been: two murders; four attempted murders; 11 batteries with a firearm; two batteries with a knife; one sexual battery or attempted rape; one shooting into a vehicle; one robbery with a firearm; and two batteries with a dangerous weapon. Most of these crimes occurred outside of Mr. B's, and the evidence did not prove that they occurred on the licensed premises, or how close to the licensed premises they occurred. One incident that clearly occurred on the licensed premises was a fight that broke out during the early morning hours of February 12, 1995. One person was hit on the head with a claw hammer, and another was stabbed with a knife. After some of the participants left Mr. B's, fighting continued outside on the street. Someone telephoned the LCSO, and when deputies arrived, they witnessed four men kicking another who was lying on the ground behind a car, while approximately fifty other people stood watching. As the deputies approached, a man with a sawed-off shotgun walked up to the man lying on the ground and shot him in the leg. It was not clear from the evidence whether any of the people involved in the incident outside on the street had been patrons of Mr. B's. On or about August 3, 1993, the LCSO investigated an incident in which a patron of Mr. B's was shot while walking out the door of Mr. B's. The victim did not know who shot him or where the shot came from. On or about June 7, 1994, the LCSO investigated an incident involving an alleged sexual battery or attempted rape that occurred in the restroom at Mr. B's. The alleged victim in that case withdrew her complaint, and the case was closed. One LCSO deputy testified that he has received several telephone calls from a pay phone down the street at Edison Avenue reporting assaults and other crimes that allegedly occurred inside Mr. B's and that the victim reportedly was afraid to place the call to the police while still at Mr. B's (for fear of further assault.) But there was no specific evidence about any of these alleged crimes. Although some local residents blamed Mr. B's for the loud music heard in the neighborhood, especially on weekend nights, it was not clear whether the loud music being heard by the local residents actually is coming from Mr. B's, as opposed to being played from car stereos on the streets. The Respondent's Responsibility for the Violence and Noise It was not proven that Howell does anything to condone violence and noise in or around Mr. B's Lounge or that he is protecting criminals from apprehension by the LCSO. To the contrary, almost all of the crime reports to the LCSO from 2712 Towles Street were placed by Howell himself or his employees. Not only has Howell telephoned the police for assistance on many occasions, he also has put himself at risk of physical harm by helping law enforcement officers subdue violent subjects in and around the premises. In addition, Howell employs a bouncer who uses a metal detector to try to insure that no weapons are brought into Mr. B's and denies entrance to certain people known to cause problems. (Surprisingly, given the kind of people who congregate on Towles Street, there also was no evidence sufficient to support a finding of illegal drug use in or about the licensed premises.) One LCSO sergeant recalled an occasion when he confronted Howell about problems in and around Mr. B's and, in the sergeant's opinion, Howell treated him rudely. Howell does not recall the incident. No other law enforcement officer testified to any occasion when Howell was anything but cooperative with law enforcement. There was no evidence that the DABT counseled Howell on measures to take to reduce violence on his licensed premises. For example, the DABT could have required the Respondent to supervise and control the entire licensed premises, including both the building and grounds (including parking lot). The Respondent also could have been required to fully cooperate with law enforcement in its efforts to control crime in the area, including allowing LCSO complete access to the licensed premises. See Section 562.41(5), Fla. Stat. (1993). Instead, the evidence was that the LCSO complained to the DABT about Mr. B's on or about February 20, 1995, that the DABT inspected the premises on February 23, 1995, and that the DABT then initiated the proceedings that led to the issuance of the Emergency Suspension Order on or about March 16, 1995. Since Mr. B's has been under the Emergency Suspension Order, there have been markedly fewer problems for law enforcement and law-abiding residents in the area. The people who had been congregating near Mr. B's and causing problems either have found somewhere else to congregate or have dispersed for the time being. Mr. B's apparently attracted and served as a focal point for these people. It seems that suspending the Respondent's license has had a positive effect on the level of crime in the immediate vicinity. (However, some law enforcement officers seemed to support Howell's opinion that the people causing the problems near Mr. B's eventually will find another place to hang out and cause problems.) Clearly, the LCSO and many of the local residents would like to see Mr. B's closed permanently. But the reduction in violence and loitering after the Respondent's beverage license was suspended does not, in itself, prove that the Respondent was culpably responsible for violence and loitering that occurred while the licensed premises were open and operating. Howell operates a package store, not far from Mr. B's but within the city limits of Fort Myers, and near another lounge. City police regularly patrol the area, and it has relatively few of the problems experienced on Towles Street. A more frequent and visible law enforcement presence on Towles Street also would reduce violence and disturbances there. Five to ten years ago, Mr. B's operated in the same location with fewer problems. In those earlier years, LCSO patrolled the area more frequently. In those days, parking laws were enforced more consistently, and LCSO patrol cars could drive down Towles Street without difficulty. When loiterers were encountered in the street, LCSO required them to either go inside Mr. B's or go home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), enter a final order: (1) dismissing the charges in the Notice to Show Cause against the Respondent, Edward Lee Howell; and (2) also dismissing the Notice to Show Cause seeking to impair the licensed location owned by the Respondent, William A. Bell. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1403 and 95-1404 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the reputation attached to licensed premises actually applies not only to the licensed premises but also to Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (Many of the 176 calls on DABT Ex. 3 were not made from Mr. B's.) Second and third sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it only was proven that a few of the violent acts actually were committed on the licensed premises.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (One of the questions for determination in this case is the extent of Howell's "affirmative duty.") Rejected as not proven that the violent acts were committed by patrons or, if they were patrons, that they were committed on the licensed premises. Otherwise, the first sentence is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, in the public mind, "Mr. B's" describes not just the licensed premises but also Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven that the initial service call reported the shooting of a patron. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the incidents described in the second sentence occurred during the investigation. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the 141 shell casings were recovered in the Respondent's "parking lot." (They were recovered from the immediate vicinity of Mr. B's, starting from the side of the building and extending for up to approximately 40 yards away, and including on the opposite side of Towles Street across from the licensed premises. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Nygaard warned Howell several times in 1990 before arresting him. Howell was tried and acquitted on a judge's ruling that it was not proven that the patron was drinking alcoholic beverages after hours. After Nygaard was reassigned to the East Zone in January, 1995, he again arrested Howell on similar charges, which Howell denies and which are still pending.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Howell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Howell wrote a letter from which findings arguably have been proposed, as indicated.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the crimes described in the evidence did not "in the vicinity of" Mr. B's. Accepted that the Respondent recently added a parking lot and incorporated to the extent necessary. Accepted that, if they cooperate, the Respondent and LCSO can solve some of the problems, and incorporated to the extent necessary. Bell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Bell also wrote a letter. Much of the letter is argument but findings arguably also have been proposed, as indicated. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs of Bell's letter are treated as consecutive, separate proposed findings.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as argument and as not supported by any evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as argument and as conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated that Howell called LCSO frequently to report crime. Rejected as not proven that none of the incidents involved Mr. B's, that all involved "just the neighborhood"; accepted and incorporated that many of the calls involved incidents occurring off the licensed premises. The rest is rejected as argument and as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the record that most of the alcoholic beverages drunk by people hanging around in Towles Street are from sources other than Mr. B's; accepted and incorporated that much is, and that all the liquor is. (Mr. B's has a Series 2-COP license.) Rejected as argument, as subordinate and unnecessary, and as unsupported by any evidence. Accepted and incorporated that LCSO has reduced patrols in the area, in part due to budgetary constraints but also in part due to the illegally parked cars that block Towles Street, and that Howell places many of the telephone calls reporting crime in the area. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence, in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that reduced police presence in areas like Towles Street increases crime. Otherwise, rejected as argument, as subordinate and as unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the DABT did not prove lack of due diligence. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. In part, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that only one of the violent crimes was reported to have originated in Mr. B's.) (See Findings of Fact 19 and 20.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated in part. In part, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the wounds were not received on the licensed premises. Otherwise, rejected as cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that the evidence did not clearly identify either the victim or the assailant as being patrons. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that Towles Street presents a difficult police problem and that increased patrols and manpower could help. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence (the nine-block area), in part as argument, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that many people congregate in the streets and that policing them is made difficult by the congestion. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. 17.-18. Cumulative. Rejected that Tamayo's statement was naive. Accepted and incorporated that the problem could move elsewhere if Mr. B's were closed. Otherwise, argument, subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or argument. However, Bell does not seem to acknowledge the serious problems faced by law enforcement in the Towles Street. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that no problems occur before 2 a.m. Also, subordinate, unnecessary, and argument. 22.-23. Argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Edward Lee Howell 1348 Brook Hill Drive Ft. Myers, Florida 33916 William A. Bell 19450 Tammy Lane Ft. Myers, Florida 33917 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued September 22, 1989 by the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondents, Eugene and Joan Ferretti, d/b/a Gino's Beer and Wine (Gino's) held a Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division) alcoholic beverage license for the premises known as Gino's located at 2012 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, Florida, license number 74-01399, series 2-APS Eugene and Joan Ferretti are co-licensees for Gino'. The Respondents stipulated that Gina Ferretti, employee and daughter of Eugene and Joan Ferretti, did on July 13, 1988 sell one 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage, to a person under the age of 21 years and on October 21, 1988 did sell one 8 ounce can of Budweiser Beer, an alcoholic beverage, to a person under the age of 21 years, both sales being in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On July 18, 1988 the Division gave the licensees Official Notice of the July 13, 1988 violation and advised the licensees that if a similar violation occurred in the future the licensees could be charged with the current violation along with any future violations. On October 24, 1988 the Division advised the licensees of the October 21, 1988 violation and that this was a final warning before issuance of a Notice To Show Cause in the event of another violation which could subject the license to revocation or suspension. Since the two incidents in which she was involved occurred, Gina Ferretti has had training concerning the sale of an alcoholic beverage to persons believed to be under the age of 21 years, and has not been involved in any other violations since October 21, 1988. Because Eugene Ferretti works in construction it is necessary for Gina Ferretti to help in running Gino's and, therefore, Gina Ferretti stills works in Gino's. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Tina D. May worked with the law enforcement investigators of the Division in the Daytona Beach, Florida area as an underage operative to assist in determining whether licensed establishments were selling alcoholic beverages within their licensed premises to persons under the age of 21 years. Ms. May was instructed by the Division, as all underage operatives are, not to dress or act in such a fashion that is designed to entice the licensee to sell her alcoholic beverages without checking her identification to confirm her age or in any way lie about her age or use a false identification. Ms. May considered her work with the Division as a public service because her husband was killed in a alcohol related vehicular accident. On March 11, 1989 Ms. May, then 20 years and 7 months of age, entered the licensed premises of the Respondent under the supervision of Ronald P. Sullivan, Investigator for the Division. Ms. May was casually dressed, wearing a white T-shirt with logo and blue jeans; her hair was brushed straight downward, and she wore no makeup. On March 11, 1989 Ms. May's appearance resembled that of a working person rather than that of a student on spring break. After entering Gino's, Ms. May proceeded to purchase a 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage. Eugene Ferretti was on duty at the time, and asked Ms. May if she was "21". Instead of responding that she was not "21", Ms. May handed Ferretti her Florida's driver's license with a yellow background indicating that the person identified in the license was under the age of 21 years when the license was issued. Ms. May's lack of a verbal response to Ferretti's question concerning her age was contrary to instructions given by Ronald Sullivan, to be "up front" about her age. The implication of Ms. May producing her driver's license in response to a question concerning her age, coupled with her appearance, led Ferretti to believe that she was "21", and resulted in Ferretti being less diligent than he should have been in reviewing Ms. May's driver's license. Due to Ferretti's lack of diligence he misread the 08 in May's birth date of 08/04/68 as an 03 and determined her birth date to be 03/04/68 rather than 08/04/68. Thinking she had just turned "21" on March 4, 1988, Ferretti sold Ms. May, a person under the age of 21 years, a 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage. Ms. May had never purchased or attempted to purchase an alcoholic beverage in Gino's before the time of this offense. Ronald P. Sullivan was at the door of Gino's when Ms. May purchased the beer, but was unable to hear the conversation between Ferretti and Ms. May. Upon completing the purchase of the 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer from Ferretti, Ms. May handed the beer to Sullivan who impounded it. Ferretti does not dispute the sale of the beer on March 11, 1989 to Ms. May, and allowed it to be introduced into evidence without objection. The conversations between the Division's operative and Gina Ferretti during the sales on July 13, 1988 and October 21, 1988 were taped, which is the usual procedure so as to rebut any conflicting testimony concerning a conversations between the Division's operative and the person making the sale. However, the conversation at the time of the sale between Ferretti and Ms. May on March 11, 1989 was not taped.
Recommendation In making the following recommendation I am mindful of the Division's "guidelines" of imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and a 20-day suspension of the license for the first offense of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, (selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 years) regardless of the circumstances surrounding the violation, which appear to conclusively presume that the penalty should be the same regardless of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation without any consideration being given to mitigating circumstances, if any. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the violations, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for such violations, considering the circumstances surrounding the violations, assess a civil penalty of $250.00 for each of the violations for a total civil penalty of $750.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 20th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6166 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 9 and 11, except the last sentence which is rejected since the label on the can of beer does not indicate the alcohol content. However, the can of beer does have the word Florida? on its lid and bares the trademark "Anheuser-Busch" which is prima facie evidence of it being an alcoholic beverage as defined in Section 561.01(4)(a), Florida Statutes which was not rebutted. See Section 562.47(2), Florida Statutes. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 through 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 through 6, as modified. Not necessary to the conclusion reached in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Facts 1 and 2, respectively. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7, but modified. 4.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11. 9.-10. These are restatements of testimony and not findings of fact, but see Finding of Fact 9. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 12.-16. These are restatements of testimony and not findings of fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 17.-18. Not material to the conclusion reached in this Recommended Order. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Emily Moore, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 French Davis, Esquire 2762 South Peninsular Daytona Beach, Florida 32118
The Issue The issue herein is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all the evidence the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, Annie L. Wright d/b/a Coffee's Draft Beer, is the holder of license number 26-1716,License Series 2-COP, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). The license authorizes Respondent to operate an establishment at 2601 Pearl Street, Jacksonville, Florida to sell beer and wine with consumption on premises. On or about August 12, 1982, Division Beverage Officer Hamilton visited Respondent's licensed premises for the purpose of purchasing illegal drugs. The officer sat at the bar and ordered a beer. While seated at the bar, he observed a card game in progress on the premises in which U.S. currency was being transferred between the players. He also observed two individuals named Red and Wesley who were smoking two cigarettes that the officer believed to be marijuana. When the officer asked a patron where he could purchase marijuana, he was directed to Nell, a cardplayer, who sold him a manila envelope allegedly containing marijuana for $5.00. A drug analysis performed at a later date confirmed that the envelope did indeed contain 2.6 grams of cannabis. The purchase of the drug was made in plain view of the card players, bartender and other patrons seated at the bar. At no time did the bartender (Faye) attempt to stop the gambling, use of drugs or the sale of drugs or to ask the individuals to leave the premises. On or about August 21, 1982, Officer Hamilton returned to Respondent's licensed premises around 11:15 a.m. Faye was on duty as bartender. While there the officer observed a female named Doris Jean Johnson take out a cigarette and smoke it in the presence of the bartender and another female patron. The cigarette was passed to the other female patron who also smoked it. Based upon the odor emanating from the cigarette, Officer Hamilton believed it was marijuana. While smoking the cigarette Faye cautioned Johnson to be careful since police officers occasionally visited the premises. The beverage officer also observed four unidentified males on the premises playing cards. United States currency was being bet on each game and transferred between the card players upon the completion of the games. On or about August 28, 1982, Beverage Officer Junious visited Re5pondent'5 licensed premises around 6:30 p.m. He sat at the bar and ordered a beer from a bartender named Tommy. Officer Junious asked Tommy where he could purchase some "grass". He was told someone on the premises should have some for sale but he (Tommy) wasn't exactly sure whom. While seated at the bar Officer Junious saw six hand-rolled cigarettes being smoked by patrons in plain view of the bartender and other patrons. Based upon their odor and the manner in which they were smoked, the officer believed the cigarettes to be marijuana. On or about September 4, 1982, Beverage Officer Hamilton visited the licensed premises around 4:10 p.m. and ordered a beer from an unidentified male bartender. He observed a card game in progress in which U.S. money was being bet and transferred between the players. The bartender also took a "cut" from the pot on several occasions. During the game Wesley, a card player, pulled a manila envelope from his pocket, had a female patron roll a cigarette from its contents, and then smoked it. Based upon its odor and the manner in which it was smoked, Officer Hamilton believed the cigarette to be marijuana. On or about September 29, 1982 Beverage Officer Hicks executed a search warrant on the premises and arrested Doris Jean Johnson for possession of cannabis. A laboratory analysis later confirmed that Johnson was in possession 8.6 grams of cannabis. Respondent stated that when the above events occurred, she was working another full-time job. For that reason she hired Faye to manage the establishment. When Faye was hired she was instructed not to permit gambling or smoking on the premises. She also posted a sign on the front of the building which read "No drugs allowed on premises. Because of her full-time job, and the fact she had no transportation and did not live nearby, Respondent visited the premises only at night. When she learned that drugs and gambling had been discovered at her business, she fired all employees who were working during that period of time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the notice to show cause, and that her beverage license number 26-1716 be suspended for a period of thirty days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Annie L. Wright 1703 North Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the accusation by the Petitioner directed to the Respondent that the Respondent, on or about January 24, 1980, did unlawfully have in her possession or permit or allow someone else to have in their possession, namely, Anthony Lewis Graham, alcoholic beverages, to wit: one partial quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka, one partial quart bottle of Gordon's Gin and one 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin, on the licensed premises and it is further alleged that the substances were not authorized by law to be sold under the Respondent's license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its purpose the regulation of those several licensees who sell alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Estelle Collins, is the holder of an alcoholic beverages license issued by the Petitioner, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS. This license allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine to be consumed off the licensed premises. The license is issued for the Respondent's premises located at 1152 East 21st Street, Jacksonville, Florida, where the Respondent trades under the name 21st Street Grocery. On January 24, 1980, Anthony Lewis Graham, one of the Respondent's patrons in her licensed premises, removed a box from his automobile which was parked on the street in the vicinity of the licensed premises. He carried the box which contained a partially filled quart bottle of Gordon`s Gin; a partially filled quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka and a partially filled 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin into the licensed premises. These bottles contained liquor, that is, alcoholic or spiritous beverages that were not authorized to be sold at the licensed premises under the terms and conditions of the license issued to the Respondent. The box containing the liquor was carried in while an employee of the Respondent was working in the licensed premises and placed behind the meat counter. The box was left with the top opened. It is not clear whether the employee saw the bottles in the box prior to a routine premises inspection conducted by officers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The inspection took place shortly after Graham had brought the alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises. When the officers entered the premises, they identified themselves to the employee working in the store and this employee left to get the licensee. The employee returned with the Respondent, Estelle Collins, and the officers commenced inspection of the premises. In the course of that inspection, they discovered the aforementioned bottles of alcoholic beverages in the box. They also noted other empty liquor bottles in the area of the meat counter and the service counter within the licensed premises. (There had been another occasion in February, 1979, when the Petitioner's officers had discovered empty gin and vodka bottles in the licensed premises, and this former situation brought about a citation to the Respondent but no penalty action was taken against the Respondent.) No testimony was developed on the matter of the instructions which the Respondent had given to her employees on the subject of keeping unauthorized forms of liquor out of the licensed premises. The only remark which was established by the hearing dealing with the question of keeping those items away from the licensed premises was a statement by Graham, who said that it was not unusual for him to go behind the service counter in the licensed premises. Following this inspection and the discovery of the alcoholic beverages, to wit: liquor bottles in the box, the Petitioner brought the present action against the Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint accusation placed against the Respondent, Estelle Collins, d/b/a 21st Street Grocery, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Kennedy Hutcheson, Esquire 341 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
