The Issue Whether or not on or about the 19th day of August, 1975, the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, his agent, servant or employee, one Robert Henry Williams did unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to wit: one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer, in a manner not permitted by the Respondent's beverage license, to wit: while the license was suspended, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 19, 1975, the beverage license which the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage was on active suspension. The notice of suspension had been served on Leartis Frazier at Frazier's Grocery, 2273 Commonwealth Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. Furthermore, a sign had been posted at that address which indicated that the license of Leartis Frazier t/a Frazier's Grocery was suspended. On August 19, 1975, while the license was under suspension an officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed one David Brooks enter Frazier's Grocery, without any objects in his hands. This observation occurred after the officer had encountered Brooks moments before in the conduct of an investigation and Brooks had not been carrying any objects in his hands at that moment either. Several minutes after entering the Frazier's, the same David Brooks exited Frazier's Grocery with a paper bag in his hands which contained one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer. The Officer then entered the licensed premises and went to the beer counter and opened it up and discovered one can of beer missing from a six-pack container of Budweiser beer. At the time the officer made this investigation the sign which had been placed in the window of Frazier's Grocery to indicate the license suspension was being displayed. A Mr. Williams was sitting behind the counter inside the licensed premises as an employee, agent or servant of the Respondent at the time the officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office discovered the missing can of beer. Mr. Brooks, when questioned about where he had bought the can of beer, after discussion, indicated that he had bought it at Frazier's Grocery. By Mr. Brooks' statement and the officer's observation, it is established that Mr. Williams sold the Budweiser beer to Brooks. The Mr. Williams was identified in the hearing, as being Robert Henry Williams.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, be suspended for a period of one year for the violation as established in the hearing on this Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leartis Frazier 2273 Commonwealth Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence (including Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Club 99, Inc., is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 16- 1053-SRX, series 4-COP, doing business at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida, as a bar and restaurant named Shangri-La. On August 7, 1984, the Plantation Police Department began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises known as Club 99, Inc. d/b/a Shangri-La, holding license number 16-1053-SRX, series 4-COP, located at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida. On this date Detective Dan Anderson entered the licensed premises undercover and was introduced to a white male bartender identified as Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation with Perkins regarding a narcotic known as MDA. Perkins explained that MDA was a mixture of heroin and speed and further stated that he could obtain MDA for Anderson at a price of $70.00 a gram or $10.00 a "hit." Detective Anderson also engaged in conversation about MDA with Scott Kiehl, the assistant manager at the licensed premises. Later that same evening Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation about cocaine with a white male bartender on the licensed premises known as "Paul" or "Miss Kitty." None of the employees with whom Detective Anderson discussed MDA or cocaine appeared to be alarmed or concerned about the discussion. On August 10, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and engaged in a conversation with a white male bartender identified as Richard Christian. Detective Anderson asked if he could buy a half gram of cocaine and Richard Christian answered in the affirmative stating that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. Detective Anderson gave $40.00 in U.S. currency to Christian and Christian covered the money with a cocktail napkin. Christian took the money and shortly thereafter he placed a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance under a cocktail napkin and pushed it across the bar towards Detective Anderson. At this same time, Christian said, "It is underneath." After looking under the napkin, Anderson took the cocktail napkin and the small plastic bag and placed them in his left front pants pocket. On August 17, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:00 P.M. 2/ On this occasion he met with a white male bartender named Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins had obtained any MDA for him and Perkins answered in the negative. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins could get him any cocaine. Perkins answered in the negative but pointed out a waiter named Everett Campbell and suggested that Anderson ask Campbell about cocaine. Detective Anderson then approached the waiter identified as Everett Campbell and asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative and said the price would be $35.00. Anderson agreed to the price. Later that evening Campbell approached Anderson and said that the person he gets the cocaine from was not in the bar and that, therefore, he could not deliver any cocaine to Detective Anderson. On August 18, 1984, at approximately 11:35 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell. This time Campbell told Anderson that he would be able to obtain some cocaine. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on August 19, 1984, Detective Anderson gave Campbell $40.00 in U.S. currency. Campbell took the money and walked to an unknown location off the premises and returned in about five minutes. Campbell then handed Detective Anderson a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Nothing was wrapped around the plastic bag. Detective Anderson held up the plastic bag to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. The other bartenders and a large number of patrons were nearby and could have seen what was happening. On August 21, 1984, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises. Anderson struck up a conversation with a white male patron identified as Dion Burl. Detective Anderson asked Burl if he could obtain some cocaine for Anderson. Burl replied in the affirmative and stated that it would cost $40.00 for one half gram. Anderson placed a cocktail napkin over two $20.00 bills and handed them to Burl. Burl took the money and walked to an unknown location. At approximately 11:30 P.M., Burl returned. He handed Detective Anderson a white cocktail napkin and a small clear plastic bag that contained a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson took the substance and placed it in his pants pocket. On August 23, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell at approximately 11:00 P.M. Campbell was working as a waiter that night. Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could obtain a half gram of cocaine for Anderson. Campbell answered in the affirmative and said it would cost $40.00. Detective Anderson gave Campbell the money and a while later Campbell handed him a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's inside." Inside the magazine Detective Anderson found a small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson held the plastic bag up to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. On August 24, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. At approximately the same time Investigator Oliva entered in an undercover capacity as back up. Upon entering the premises Detective Anderson met with white male bartender Richard Christian and both engaged in general conversation. After a short period of time Detective Anderson asked Christian if he had any cocaine. Christian stated that be did not have any right now but for Anderson to go ahead and give Christian $35.00, and that he would have it later. Anderson complied with Christian's request and gave Christian $35.00 U.S. currency. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva seated themselves at a table in the dining area of the licensed premises, where they were greeted by Everett Campbell. Shortly thereafter Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson some cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Anderson folded two $20.00 bills, placed them under a napkin, and gave them to Campbell. Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva then saw Campbell go into the kitchen area several times. About fifteen or twenty minutes later, Campbell approached the table where Anderson and Oliva were seated and placed a folded cocktail napkin in front of Detective Anderson and said, "It's in there." Anderson unfolded the napkin and found that it contained a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson removed the plastic bag from the napkin and inspected the plastic bag by holding it up to eye level for a few seconds. Detective Anderson saw other patrons looking at him when he raised the plastic bag to eve level. After inspecting the plastic bag, Anderson put it in his pocket. At approximately midnight of the evening of August 24-25, 1984, Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva left the restaurant portion of the licensed premises and proceeded to the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, which is another lounge. After a short period of time, Anderson and Oliva were greeted by a waiter identified as Adam Burnett. Anderson and Oliva negotiated with Burnett for the purchase of cocaine. In approximately five minutes Burnett returned to the table where the officers were seated and stated that he could obtain a better quality of cocaine for $40.00 in U.S. currency for one half gram. At this time Investigator Oliva stated that he would take the better quality of cocaine and gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency. A few minutes later Investigator Oliva followed Burnett into the mens' restroom. Once inside the mens' room, Burnett handed Oliva a white cocktail napkin. Oliva took the napkin and unwrapped it. Inside was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva held the plastic bag up to eye level to view its contents and discussed with Burnett the fact that the white powdery substance had a lot of "rocks" in it. Oliva then stated to Burnett that he was not going to do the cocaine in the bathroom because he did not trust anyone. Burnett's reply was, "It's okay. Everyone does it in here anyway." Oliva and Burnett then left the restroom. A few minutes later that same evening, an unknown white male employee who had been previously working at a bar located in the downstairs portion of the premises approached Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva and stated to Anderson, "Richard wants to see you downstairs". Anderson and Oliva proceeded downstairs to the bar located by the kitchen entrance. There Detective Anderson met with bartender Richard Christian, who told Anderson to reach into his shirt pocket. Anderson reached in Christian's shirt pocket and pulled out a folded napkin, and a small clear plastic bag which contained a white powdery substance. When Detective Anderson started to open the cocktail napkin, Christian put his hands out to close Anderson's hands in an effort to keep other people from seeing the bag. On August 29, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At approximately 10:00 P.M., Detective Anderson was introduced to a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown. Anderson and Brown engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Brown if he could get a half gram of cocaine. Brown stated that be should be able to obtain one and that he would check around and get back to Detective Anderson. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Brown approached Detective Anderson and stated that he had checked around, but was unable to obtain any cocaine. On the same date, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson met with waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get him a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied by stating, "Wait 'til Gus gets here." Burnett further stated that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. At approximately 12:10 A.M., on August 30, 1984, Anderson handed Burnett two $20.00 bills. About twenty minutes later, Burnett handed Anderson a folded napkin. Anderson unfolded the napkin and found a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson then placed the clear plastic bag in his left front pocket. On the evening of August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. Investigator Oliva and Detective Vadnal entered the premises at about the same time in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl. Anderson asked Burl if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burl replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Burl two folded $20.00 bills, which were wrapped in a cocktail napkin. Burl took the money and left. At approximately 11:50 P.M., Burl returned to the upstairs portion of the premises and sat at a table with Detective Anderson. At this time Burl handed Anderson a folded cocktail napkin and inside the folded napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. On that same evening, August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown who was working at the upstairs portion of the licensed premises. Anderson and Brown engaged in a conversation while standing approximately three feet from Investigator Oliva. Anderson asked Brown if Brown could obtain a half gram of cocaine. Brown replied by stating, "It will be about twenty minutes." Detective Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Brown and told Brown that he would be in the downstairs portion of the licensed premises. At approximately 12:10 A.M, on August 31, 1984, Detective Anderson, while standing at the downstairs portion of the licensed premises was approached by Brown, who handed Anderson a folded white cocktail napkin which contained a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson inspected the plastic bag and then placed the napkin and its contents in his right rear pants pocket. On or about August 31, 1984, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At about the same time Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as backup. Shortly after midnight (in the early morning minutes of September 1, 1984) Detective Anderson met with white male waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in a general conversation. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Detective Anderson gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency by laying two $20.00 bills on a cocktail tray Burnett was carrying. Burnett walked away from Detective Anderson to an unknown portion of the licensed premises. A few minutes later Burnett returned to where Detective Anderson was standing and handed Anderson a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's in the magazine." Detective Anderson, who was standing near the dance floor of the licensed premises, took the magazine and flipped through its pages, at which time a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance fell to the floor. Several patrons standing in the vicinity of Anderson saw the clear plastic bag fall to the floor and laughed at Anderson's clumsiness. Detective Anderson then picked up the clear plastic bag and held it up to eye level to inspect it. He then placed it in his pocket. On the evening of September 5, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl and asked Burl if he could purchase a half gram of cocaine. After some conversation, Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Burl. Detective Anderson then told Burl that he would be sitting on a speaker near the west end of the dance floor and that Burl could deliver the cocaine to him there. At approximately 10:45 P.M., Burl approached Detective Anderson, who was seated on a speaker by the dance floor, and sat next to Anderson. Burl then handed a folded cocktail napkin to Detective Anderson. Inside the cocktail napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson examined the plastic bag and then placed it in his pocket. After concluding the cocaine purchase of September 5, 1984, at the licensed premises, Detective Anderson remained on the licensed premises and during the early morning hours of September 6, 1984, he met with a white male waiter previously identified as Adam Burnett. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett stated that "Gus," referring to the supplier, was not yet at the bar, but that he should be able to obtain some later. A few minutes later, Burnett approached Anderson and stated that Gus was present and Anderson handed Burnett two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Anderson then stated to Burnett that he would be in the downstairs portion of the premises. A short while later Burnett approached Anderson and handed Anderson what appeared to be a mixed drink with a napkin wrapped around the glass. As he handed the glass to Anderson, Burnett said, "It's just water, but look in the napkin." Anderson set the drink down and unfolded the napkin to expose a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson placed the plastic bag in his pocket. At approximately 12:30 A.M. that same evening (prior to purchasing the cocaine from Burnett), Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell and engaged in a general conversation with Campbell. Shortly thereafter Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Anderson gave Campbell two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Approximately two minutes later Campbell returned from an unknown location in the restaurant area of the licensed premises and handed Anderson a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson took the plastic bag and held it up to inspect it. The bartender at bar number two could have seen Anderson inspecting the plastic bag. Anderson then placed the plastic bag in his pocket. On the evening of September 10, 1984, Detectives Anderson and Vadnal and Investigator Oliva returned to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Anderson engaged in a brief conversation with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell, who was not working on this date. Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Campbell a $50.00 bill, which Campbell took. Campbell took the $50.00 bill to a bartender, received change for it, and gave Anderson $10.00. Campbell then went out the front door. At approximately 1:00 A.M. on September 11, 1984, Campbell reentered the licensed premises and met with Detective Anderson who was standing next to Investigator Oliva. At this time Campbell handed Anderson a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. This transaction was observed by an on-duty white male bartender identified only as "Don" and by a white male patron who was standing on the opposite side of Anderson. Detective Anderson took the clear plastic bag and placed it on the bar counter where it remained for two or three minutes in plain view of the bartender. Then Anderson took the plastic bag and attempted to place it in his pants pocket at which time the small plastic bag containing the white powdery substance fell to the floor where Detective Vadnal, Investigator Oliva, and the white male patron previously mentioned observed the same. Detective Anderson retrieved the clear plastic bag from the floor and placed it in his pants pocket. At all times material to this case, the following were employees on the licensed premises. Malcolm Perkins, Richard Christian, Everett Campbell, Adam Burnett, Tony Brown and a bartender identified only as "Don." Each and every one of the clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance which were sold to Detective Anderson and to Investigator Oliva on the licensed premises during August and September of 1984, were properly examined by a forensic chemist. The contents of each and every one of those clear plastic bags was found to contain cocaine. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 5-week period from August 7, 1984, through September 11, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 8/07/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson he could obtain MDA. 8/07/84 Assistant Manager Scott Kiehl and employee "Paul/Miss Kitty" discussed drugs with Detective Anderson without alarm or concern. 8/10/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson that employee Everett Campbell could obtain cocaine for Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Everett Campbell agreed to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/19/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/21/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/23/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/24/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Investigator Oliva. 8/29/84 Employee Tony Brown offered to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/31/84 Employee Tony Brown sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/01/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/05/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/11/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. All of the events summarized immediately above took place on the licensed premises during business hours when other employees and patrons were also present on the licensed premises. With the one exception which occurred on August 25, 1984, when Richard Christian reached out to close Detective Anderson's hands so that Anderson would not display a plastic bag containing cocaine, the employees at the licensed premises did not express any concern about any of the drug transactions and did not take any action to prevent or discourage them. Richard DeSanto is the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Club 99, Inc., the licensee in this case. Richard DeSanto is a self-employed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar. He has been a practicing attorney for six years and maintains an active trial practice. DeSanto does not devote very much time to the management of the licensed premises. The day-to-day management is conducted by a manager and an assistant manager, both hired by DeSanto. The manager is Tommy Engelbrecht and the assistant manager is Scotty Kiehl. DeSanto relies on Engelbrecht to relay DeSanto's instructions about the operation of the licensed premises to the other employees and also relies on Engelbrecht to report back to him regarding any problems in the operation of the licensed premises. Engelbrecht does the hiring and firing at the licensed premises and many of the employees on the licensed premises would not even recognize DeSanto. DeSanto visits the licensed premises about twice a month on a deliberately irregular schedule. Some of his visits are as brief as a few minutes; others are as long as several hours. The primary purpose of his visits is to attend to such things as reviewing business records and signing the payroll. DeSanto has established as policies that intoxicated or disorderly patrons should not be permitted to enter the licensed premises and that patrons who become disorderly once they are inside the licensed premises should be ejected. It is also a policy of the club that if the employees become aware of any drug activity on the licensed premises they are supposed to report the incident to the manager or assistant manager, and the manager or assistant manager is supposed to eject whoever is involved in the drug activity. On three or four occasions during the past year or so patrons have been ejected for drug activities on the licensed premises. DeSanto has discussed drug problems and their prevention with Engelbrecht. All new employees are told about the drug policy at the licensed premises when they are first hired. Engelbrecht has also held a few employee meetings at which he reminded employees of the drug policy. The drug policy established by DeSanto appears to include a policy of firing any employee who is caught with drugs on the premises. During the past year three waiters have been fired on the spot for drug use. In the past year the manager has also been told of three or four instances of drug dealing on the licensed premises. 3/ There are no written personnel rules and regulations. Thus, all of DeSanto's policies are communicated orally to Engelbrecht and are then communicated orally by Engelbrecht to the employees. The entire management of the licensed premises, including management practices concerning hiring of personnel, appear to be very informal. Further, the personnel policies regarding drug activities on the licensed premises are either ineffectively communicated or ineffectively enforced. For example, none of the drug transactions engaged in by Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva were reported to the manager or assistant manager, and no efforts were made to eject Anderson or Oliva for engaging in drug transactions or attempting to engage in drug transactions, even though some of their transactions were observed by employees who were not involved in the transactions. Further, at least one employee (Richard Christian) knew that a patron named Gus was regularly dealing in cocaine on the licensed premises, but no action was taken to eject Gus. 4/ Yet another example of the informality of the licensee's personnel practices is that even though Englebrecht had recently hired a bartender named "Don" and had supposedly carefully checked with Don's references, Englebrecht could not remember Don's last name. When alcoholic beverage licenses were renewed in March of 1983, the DABT sent information to all licensees advising them that the DABT was willing to provide them with suggestions for controlling drug activity on the licensed premises. DeSanto did not take advantage of this opportunity to obtain suggestions from DABT because he did not think he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. In making the foregoing findings of fact I have given careful consideration to the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' post- hearing submissions to the Hearing Officer. To the extent that findings of fact proposed by either party are not incorporated in the foregoing findings of fact, the proposed findings have been specifically rejected because they were not supported by competent substantial evidence, because they were contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, because they involve incidental details which were not essential to the resolution of this case, or because they were irrelevant or immaterial.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-1053-SRX, Series 4-COP, issued to Club 99, Inc., trading as Shangri-La. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1984.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of Wiley Ulee Pridgen to transfer the beverage license which be owned to the entity, Adult World, Inc., a corporation.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement entered into between the parties in the person of their counsel, made on September 8, 1980, the date for hearing in this cause, and in view of the written Stipulation which consummated the purposes of that agreement, the following facts are found: Wiley U. Pridgen was served with official notice that charges would be filed against him on December 10, 1979. On December 21, 1979, Wiley U. Pridgen filed an application with Respondent's Orlando District Office for transfer of ownership of his beverage license to Adult World, Inc., a corporation. On March 6, 1980, Wiley U. Pridgen was notified by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that his application for transfer of ownership had been disapproved for the reason that administrative action is pending and undetermined against the subject licensee pursuant to Florida Statute 561.32. On March 17, 1980, a copy of the formal administrative charges were served on Wiley U. Pridgen. On August 8, 1980, Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, entered an order dismissing the instant Notice to Show Cause with leave to refile. On August 25, 1980, formal charges were served upon Petitioner in the form of a Notice to Show Cause after affording a hearing to Wiley U. Pridgen under Florida Statute 120.60(6).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Adult World, Inc., d/b/a Strip World Topless Entertainment, be denied its request to have the ownership of License No. 58-1278, Series 2-COP, transferred from Wiley U. Pridgen to Adult World, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue This case concerns the application of William E. Morey, who does business as Morey's Restaurant, to acquire a new series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, in which the Respondent has denied the license application on the grounds that the granting of such a license would be contrary to provisions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code. These provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code deal with the prohibition of a financial interest directly or indirectly between distributors of alcoholic beverages and vendors of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Willian E. Morey, applied to the State of Florida, Departent of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for the issuance of series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license. By letter dated, January 23, 1979, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the application based upon the belief that such issuance wood violate the provisions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code. The pertinent provision of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, states: 561.42 Tied house evil; financial aid and assistance to vendor by manufacturer or distributor prohibited; procedure for en- forcement; exception.-- (1) No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the Beverage Law, nor shall such licensed manu- facturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of rebates of any kind whatsoever. * * * In keeping with the general principle announced in Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has enacted Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code, which states: 7A-4.18 Rental between vendor and distri- butor prohibited. It shall be considered a violation of Section 561.42, Florida Sta- tutes, for any distributor to rent any property to a licensed vendor or from a licensed vendor if said property is used, in whole or part as part of the licensed premises of said vendor or if said property is used in any manner in connection with said vendor's place of business. The facts in this case reveal that William E. Morey leases the premises, for which he has applied for a license, from Anthony Distributors, Inc., of 1710 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Anthony Distributors, Inc., is the holder of a J-DBW license to distribute alcoholic beverages in the State of Florida. This license is held with the permission of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Consequently, the issuance of a series 2-COP license to William E. Morey at a time when he is leasing the licensed premises from a distributor of alcoholic beverages, namely, Anthony Distributors, Inc., would be in violation of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Role 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, William E. Morey's application for a series 2-COP beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Willian E. Morey d/b/a Morey's Restaurant 4101 North 66th Street St. Petersburg, Florida 33709 Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983.
The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Willie Coachman, was a licensed beer vendor having been issued license number 39-02165 by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent uses his license at a business known as Willie's Fina Station located at 1312 East Columbus Drive, Tampa, Florida. The license is a Series 1-APS which authorizes Coachman to sell beer by package only for consumption off premises. On August 17, 1988 a Division investigator, Keith B. Hamilton, conducted an investigation of Coachman's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling beer. He did so since Coachman's license was then under a suspension. After finding the beer coolers sealed with tape, Hamilton left the premises and stood outside the front door. He then observed a black male enter the premises carrying two boxes filled with cartons of cigarettes. The black male gave them to the store clerk, and Hamilton observed the clerk pay the male $80 from the cash register for the cigarettes. The cigarettes were then placed on the floor near Coachman's office. The male was not driving a vendor's truck nor was he dressed in a vendor's uniform. Hamilton telephoned another Division investigator, William P. Fisher, who came to the premises some ninety minutes later. The two entered Coachman's store, identified themselves to a clerk and inspected the stock room. According to Hamilton, Coachman is authorized to buy cigarettes from two area cigarette wholesale distributors, Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) and Eli Witt Corporation (Eli Witt). Each wholesaler has a distinctive stamp on its cigarette packages so that an investigator can easily determine from which wholesaler a vendor obtained cigarettes. Upon examining the cigarettes in Coachman's stock room, including the two boxes just sold to the cashier, Hamilton and Fisher noted that approximately 3,137 packs did not have a Costco or Eli Witt stamp. After the clerk could not produce invoices to verify that the cigarettes were purchased from a licensed wholesale dealer, the 3,137 packs were seized and taken to an evidence vault. At that time, the clerk acknowledged that Coachman had authorized her to make cigarette purchases from patrons. Coachman arrived at the premises as the investigators were leaving. He objected to the seizure saying that some of the cigarettes being taken were "good." Coachman was told the cigarettes would be returned if he could produce invoices establishing that they were validly purchased. During the course of the inspection on August 17, investigator Fisher observed nine bottles of Chivas Regal Scotch on a desk in Coachman's office. The bottles were unopened. According to Hamilton, it is unlawful for a beer vendor to have such alcoholic beverages on the premises even for personal consumption. Thus, even though Coachman maintained, without contradiction, that the scotch was for his own use, it was improper for him to store the same on his premises. After the cigarettes were placed in the evidence vault, Coachman produced certain invoices for the Division and also had several wholesalers telephone the Division to confirm various sales to Coachman. This resulted in 540 packs being returned to Coachman. Some 2,502 packs still remain in the Division's custody. At hearing, Coachman indicated that he normally buys some $30,000 to $40,000 of cigarettes monthly from various wholesalers. Also, he offered into evidence various receipts for purchases made in July and August 1988 and documentation verifying that a large quantity of cigarettes was obtained through transfers (exchanges) of cigarettes with other vendors. This latter situation occurs whenever one vendor has a slow-moving brand and exchanges them for a different brand with another vendor. However, each transfer must be documented with paperwork. The Division did not inventory the seized cigarettes by brand or dealer. Its evidence vault receipt, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3, reflected only that 2502 packs of cigarettes were taken. However, by credible testimony it was established that none of the confiscated cigarettes had indicia to show that they were purchased from Costco or Eli Witt. This was not contradicted. On the evening of August 31, 1988 investigator Turner and two informants carried fifteen cases of beer to another licensed premises operated by Coachman. The beer was transported in an unmarked, private vehicle. They offered to sell the beer to Coachman for $4.00 per case but then agreed to sell it for $3.00 per case, which is substantially below the fair and wholesale market value. The sale took place at the house of Coachman's children but Turner was paid with monies from respondent's cash register. Prior to the sale, Division personnel placed special markings on the bottom of the cans for identification purposes so that they could be later identified. On September 6, 1988 investigator Freese went inside respondent's premises and purchased a six pack of Busch beer for $2.69. The package was one of those previously sold to Coachman on August 31. Coachman denied reselling the Busch beer and contended it was purchased for personal consumption and use by his children. However, this testimony is not accepted as being credible. Also, he contended that all cigarettes were legally purchased from wholesalers or by exchange with other dealers and that he had appropriate documentation on hand at all times. However, such documentation was not on hand on the night the cigarettes were taken, and Coachman did not show that any of the cigarettes referred to on the documents supplied at hearing were the same that were seized by the investigators on August 17. Thus, the documentation was not sufficient. Coachman's license has been subject to disciplinary action on two other occasions. It was first suspended for thirty days effective January 6, 1987 for Coachman dealing in stolen property and purchasing cigarettes from other than a wholesale dealer. It was suspended a second time for a twenty day period effective August 9, 1988 for respondent (a) purchasing cigarettes from other than a wholesale dealer, (b) failing to maintain invoices of cigarette purchases on the premises, (c) possessing beverages not permitted to be sold under his license, (d) gambling and possession of gambling paraphernalia, and (e) conducting a prohibited lottery. Under petitioner's policy, as explicated at hearing, a license is revoked after repeat violations occur.
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, as amended, and that his APS license number 39-02165 be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of March, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On November 7, 1985, Marcos E. Cardenas, store manager of the Save-A- Step store, the licensed premises operated by the Respondents, DeCardenas and Bates, at 11005 N.E. 6th Avenue in Miami, Florida, under 2APS alcoholic beverage license 23-01862, sold, gave, served or permitted to be served a six- pack of 12 ounce cans of Budweiser beer to E.O., an individual 18 years of age. As a result of this sale, which was observed by Officer Beverly Jenkins, the Respondents were issued an official notice indicating that the offense had taken place and what it was. The purpose of this violation notice is to give the Respondent/licensee a warning of the OABT's policy regarding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and the laws of the State of Florida prohibiting such activity. Ordinarily a disciplinary charge does not result from a first offense. Somewhat later, on February 5, 1986, however, the Respondents, this time through employee Enrique Mario Ribas, a clerk at the same store, also sold, gave, served or permitted to be served a 12 ounce container of Michelob beer to a 17 year old individual, K.A.W. On this second occasion, the Respondents were served with a final letter of warning indicating that this was the second offense and urging the licensees to strongly and personally address the problem. The licensee was also advised that if he or an employee violated the law for a third time, a Notice to Show Cause would be filed including past violations and as a result, the license would be subject to discipline. Notwithstanding this, on May 28, 1986, Eric William Guzman, a store clerk in Licensees' facility, sold, gave, served or permitted to be served a 12 ounce can of Old Milwaukee Light beer to a 19 year old underage individual, H.M. All three violations took place on the licensed premises and all three constituted a violation of the statutes. As a result of this third violation, and consistent with the terms of the final letter of warning, a Notice to Show Cause was filed alleging all three violations. It is the policy of DABT to impose, for a third offense of this nature, a $1,000.00 fine and a 20 day suspension of the license. There is, however, an opportunity for this penalty to be mitigated and counsel for Petitioner stipulated that a suspension is not always included as an action for violations of this nature. Mitigation activity, however, is that activity shown by the licensee to indicate what efforts he or she has made to prevent repeated actions of the nature involved here. It is not sufficient that the offending employee be discharged upon commission of the offense, though there was no evidence that was done here. Mitigation would be those actions take in advance of the offense, of a prophylactic nature, to insure as best as is possible that future offenses do not occur. Here, according to Sergeant Jenkins, who was present at the first violation, the licensees had displayed no signs or other indications on the licensed premises that individuals under the lawful drinking age would not be allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. In short, Respondents offered no mitigation evidence to reduce the gravity of the offense. The personal representative's argument will be considered.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondents' 2 APS alcoholic Beverage license number 23- 01862 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 15th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 W. Douglas Moody Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rene M. Valdez, pers. rep. 1830 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 =================================================================
