The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), should revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 13-153, Series 5-COP, issued to the Respondent, Tupelo Management, Inc., doing business as Pastime, a bar located at 3602 West Highway 98, Panama City, Florida, upon the following grounds alleged in DABT's Notice To Show Cause issued May 2, 1984: On or about March 7, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13. On or about March 12, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Detective Moore on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13. On or about March 23, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: Teresa, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore on your licensed premises in violation of section 893.13. On or about March 26, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant, or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. On or about April 2, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. On or about April 9, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. You, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, between March 7, 1984 and the date of service of this Notice to Show Cause have maintained a public nuisance on your licensed premises, to wit: a place or building which is visited by persons for the purpose of unlawfully using, keeping, selling and/or delivering controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, such being a violation of: (a) Florida Statutes 823.10 and 561.29(1)(c); (b) Florida Statutes 823.01 and 561.29(1)(a). You, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, between March 7, 1984 and the date of this Notice to Show Cause have maintained your licensed premises as a place resorted to by persons selling controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Sections 893.13(2)(a)5 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant and material to this case, Tupelo Management, Inc., has been the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 13-153, Series 5- COP, issued for the premises known as the Pastime, located at 3602 West Highway 98, Panama City, Florida. Mr. John Michael Whitfield is, and was at all relevant and material times, the president of Tupelo Management, Inc. Mr. Whitfield and his wife own all of the stock of Tupelo Management, Inc. Mr. Whitfield first opened the Pastime on May 18, 1977. At that time it was a small beer and wine bar with five pool tables. Over the years the business grew and in August of 1983 Mr. Whitfield purchased a 5-COP license for the Pastime. Prior to the events giving rise to this case, the Pastime had only been cited by the DABT for two violations. The first violation occurred during the first year of Pastime's operation. It concerned the wording of an advertisement on the exterior of the building. A DABT agent wrote a report or citation and the sign was promptly removed. No penalty was imposed as a result of that event. The second violation occurred during January of 1984. On that occasion the DABT agents found two minors on the licensed premises. The January 1984 violation was resolved by stipulation, pursuant to which Tupelo Management, Inc., paid a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00. The Bay County Sheriff's Department began an investigation of the Pastime in March of 1984 on the basis of information that illegal drug activity was occurring on the licensed premises. Mr. Floyd M. Moore, Jr., an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff's Department, went to the licensed premises the evening of March 7, 1984. Investigator Moore was introduced by a confidential informant to a waitress named Margie Adams, who was employed on the licensed premises. Investigator Moore asked Margie Adams if she could obtain some marijuana and she answered in the affirmative. Investigator Moore left the premises and returned at approximately 7:45 P.M. that same evening. He made contact with Margie Adams again. Margie Adams made a telephone call and then told Investigator Moore the marijuana would be there a short time later. At about 8:45 P.M. Margie Adams asked Moore how the transaction could be made. At Moore's suggestion they went to a table on the licensed premises and Margie Adams handed Investigator Moore a clear plastic bag containing marijuana. The plastic bag was covered when it was given to Investigator Moore. Investigator Moore paid Margie Adams $35.00 for the marijuana. On March 12, 1984, at approximately 7:45 P.M. Investigator Moore and Beverage Officer Rodney Russ entered the Pastime. After Investigator Moore introduced Margie Adams to Russ, Margie asked Moore if he had liked what she had previously sold him and agreed to get another bag for Moore, stating that it would just take a phone call. Margie spoke to a female waitress for a few minutes, after which she went behind the bar and made a telephone call. She thereafter returned to the officers and stated that the marijuana would arrive in approximately 30 minutes and asked that Investigator Moore pay her at that time to avoid confusion when it arrived. Investigator Moore gave Margie $35. At approximately 8:45 P.M. Margie told Investigator Moore that the merchandise had arrived and asked him to walk to the end of the bar. Moore went to the end of the bar located next to the dart board, where there was a lot of activity and numerous people, and Margie handed him a white paper napkin covering a plastic baggie of marijuana. On the evening of March 19, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. The officers each ordered one-quarter ounce of marijuana from Margie Adams but she stated that the person she was getting it from was not home so it would take some time. The officers observed Margie making a phone call, after which she told them that it would be approximately one hour before she could deliver. The officers left the Pastime and returned at approximately 9:00 P.M. The officers entered into a conversation with a male patron who told them there was a man in the pool room trying to sell marijuana. Investigator Moore told the patron to tell the man in the pool room that they were interested in buying. The patron went to the pool room and spoke to a male, who later came over to the officers and introduced himself as George. George (who was later identified as George W. Osborne) told the Officers that he had heard they were interested in buying, and Moore explained that they had ordered one-quarter ounce each but it did not look like it was going to arrive. George stated that he could sell them one-quarter ounce for $35.00 and the officers agreed to buy it. George left the officers and went to speak with Margie Adams. He returned shortly and asked the officers if they were getting their marijuana from Margie Adams. Russ stated that he would rather not say, and George said it was okay because he and the waitress were getting from the same person and that he and Margie had discovered that they were each ordering for the same persons. Russ told Margie that he did not want to cut her out of a sale, and she stated that it was okay to buy from George, that it was just like buying from her and she would get credit for the sale. During the time that Russ was talking to Margie, George handed Investigator Moore an orange tablet which he stated was a Preludin. Shortly thereafter, the officers and George walked outside to a motorcycle parked near the door and George laid two plastic baggies containing marijuana on the seat of the motorcycle. Each officer obtained one of the baggies of marijuana and each paid George 535.00. On March 22, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the pastime. Margie was not on duty that night. Moore and Russ spoke to two waitresses who were on duty, Karen and Sionna, and told the waitresses they had purchased marijuana from George and were waiting to buy some more from him. The officers asked Sionna if George was an all right guy to deal with and she said that he was. Later that evening when George entered the Pastime he spoke to Sionna and then went back outside where the officers observed him talking to customers near the front door. A few minutes later George approached the officers and asked how they had liked the marijuana he had sold them. The officers said it had been fine and they asked George if he could obtain some more marijuana and some more "speed" or Preludin. George said he could obtain both and he left the premises on his motorcycle. When George returned he approached Investigator Russ and handed him five orange tablets which were supposed to be "speed" or Preludin. Investigator Russ paid George $25.00 for the tablets. George told the officers he had been unable to obtain marijuana, but would have some the following morning. The five tablets sold to Investigator Russ were later tested and found to contain caffeine, but they did not contain any controlled substances. On March 22, 1984, Detective Jonathan McNeil and Investigator Pam Hellett were also at the Pastime. They were seated at a booth with other officers. A male who identified himself as Phillip (later identified as Leroy Phillips) sat with the officers for a while. He got up to leave and told Detective McNeil that he would be back, he just needed to find something for his head. When he returned, McNeil asked Phillips where he could get something for his head and Phillips got up and said that he would go see his sister, he knew she had something. Phillips later identified his sister as Gloria, the manager of the Pastime. When Phillips returned to the table, he pulled a package of cigarettes from his pocket and showed Detective McNeil two small white square pieces of paper under the cellophane portion and stated that they were two hits of acid. McNeil paid Phillips $10.00 and took the two pieces of paper and inserted them into his cigarette package. Phillips told McNeil that the acid was "Mr. Natural." The pieces of paper were subsequently tested and found to contain LSD. The male previously identified as George came and sat with the officers and they began discussing whether a man seated at the next booth was a police officer. Investigator Hellett said to George, "Hurry up and give me everything you have," and George reached into his jacket and removed several orange tablets and some marijuana, which he placed in Investigator Hellett's lap. Hellett told George that she did not accept anything that she did not pay for and he asked how much she would like to buy. Detective McNeil asked George how much he was selling the tablets for and he stated that he would sell them to the officers for $3.00 apiece although he had sold them to other Persons for $5.00. McNeil agreed to buy five tablets and, in an attempt to be discreet, handed George $15.00 under the table. George handed the tablets to McNeil under the table, although McNeil stated that he was the only one trying to be discreet about the transaction. Investigator Hellett bought seven tablets from George in exchange for $21.00. George gave Investigator Hellett a small amount of marijuana and told her to try it and see if she liked it. The substance given to Investigator Hellett was subsequently tested and found to be marijuana, and the pills were tested and found to contain caffeine, but not to contain any controlled substance. Late in the morning on March 23, 1984, Investigator Moore went to the licensed premises to obtain the marijuana previously promised by George. George was not at the Pastime, and Moore talked to the bartender Teresa about being there to obtain marijuana from George. Teresa stated that George was probably getting it from "us." After conversing with Teresa about other drug transactions, Moore told Teresa that it looked like George was not going to arrive and Teresa stated that she would give him some. She put her purse on the bar and removed from it a small portion of marijuana and placed it in a napkin lying on the bar. Investigator Moore observed Mr. Michael Whitfield and his wife on the licensed premises, but neither of them were in sight at the time Teresa placed the marijuana on the napkin. Moore also talked to Teresa about cocaine and she said she could obtain some for him for $100.00 a gram. On March 26, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. They asked the waitress Margie Adams if she could get them a quarter ounce of marijuana. At first she said she could not, because she said she had had a fight with her supplier. Later she said she could obtain some marijuana from someone else, but that she did not know anything about the quality of the marijuana. The officers told Margie that they would trust her judgment on the matter. Investigator Russ paid Margie $40.00 for the marijuana, $5.00 of which was a tip for her. At about 8:55 P.M. that evening Margie Adams approached Investigator Moore. She had a napkin on a tray and told Moore that it was in the napkin. Investigator Moore took the napkin from the tray. Inside the napkin was a small plastic bag containing marijuana. On April 2, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. The waitress Margie Adams told the officers that she was leaving at 8:00 P.M. and Investigator Russ advised her that they would like to purchase one-quarter ounce of marijuana before she left. Margie stated that she would see what she could do and later came over and said that she had arranged for some marijuana to be delivered and that if it did not arrive before she left, one of the other waitresses would deliver it to them. A short time later Margie returned and showed Investigator Russ a towel on her tray. A plastic baggie of marijuana was under the towel. Investigator Russ took the plastic baggie of marijuana and paid Margie for it. Then he placed the baggie on the table and both investigators wrote their initials on it. On April 9, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. Margie Adams approached the officers and Russ asked whether she could get them some more of the same marijuana. She said she could and asked how much they wanted. The officers openly discussed the amount to be purchased and agreed upon one-half ounce, which Margie stated would be cheaper than purchasing two one-quarter ounces. Russ asked Margie if she could get some LSD or acid. Margie later came over to the officers and stated that the marijuana had arrived but that she could not deliver it because an undercover officer was seated at the bar. Margie later returned and sat beside Moore and handed him a white napkin covering a clear plastic baggie of marijuana. The officers paid her for the marijuana. Margie told them that she had not been able to get any acid. Investigator Russ told her he would be in town later on and would like to have a couple of hits of acid. On April 11, 1984, Investigator Russ went to the Pastime and asked Margie Adams if she had been able to obtain any acid or LSD. Margie said she had been unable to get it yet. Russ told her he was going to Montego Bay (another bar) and Margie said that if she was able to get the acid she would bring it to him at Montego Bay later that night. Russ paid her $20.00 for three hits of acid at $5.00 each, plus $5.00 as a tip for her. On April 16, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ entered the Pastime to find out if Margie Adams had been able to obtain the acid Investigator Russ had paid her for. Margie was not present when the investigators arrived. When she came in later, she told the officers she had been unable to obtain the acid since she had been out of town for her grandmother's funeral. George Osborne was on the premises and Investigator Moore asked George if he had a quarter- ounce of marijuana to sell. George stated that he could get it for them in a few seconds. George left and returned shortly, motioning to investigator Moore to follow him. Moore followed George to the restroom and George handed Moore a plastic baggie containing marijuana. As Moore was examining the baggie, two white males entered the restroom, observed George and Moore, commented on how nice the marijuana looked, and asked how much it cost. Officer Moore paid George $45.00 for the marijuana and returned to the table and handed the baggie to Russ. Russ opened the baggie in plain view of other patrons and smelled the contents. Margie Adams, who was waiting on another nearby table, observed the bag of marijuana and commented to the investigators that she saw that they had gotten what they were looking for. Russ then put the baggie of marijuana in his shirt pocket so that half of it was visible and visited around the bar for several minutes. One patron told Russ that he was about to lose something out of his pocket. On April 25, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ entered the Pastime again. They asked Margie Adams if she had been able to obtain the acid Russ had paid her for. Margie told the investigators she had been unable to obtain the acid. Investigator Moore contacted George Osborne and asked whether George could get the officers a quarter-ounce bag of marijuana and also asked how long it would take. Shortly thereafter George and the two investigators walked outside to George's motorcycle and George removed from his shoe a wallet containing two plastic baggies. As George handed Moore one of the baggies, a white male walked up. George asked what he wanted and he said he wanted a bag. George went inside to make change for the $40.00 Moore had given him. While George was inside the white male said that he had been told to go to the Pastime if he wanted drugs. George returned with Moore's change and then walked around to the back of the establishment with the white male. The baggie George had handed to Moore contained marijuana. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 7-week period from March 7, 1984, through April 25, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 3/07/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 3/12/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 3/19/84 Employee Margie Adams agreed to sell marijuana to Investigator Moore and Russ, but she did not sell them anything that day. 3/19/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Margie Adams, agreed to sell marijuana to Investigator Moore and Russ. (The actual sale took place outside the licensed premises.) 3/22/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Sionna, agreed to sell marijuana and "speed," or Preludin to Investigators Moore and Russ, and actually sold 5 tablets to Investigator Moore which were supposed to he "speed," or Preludin. 3/22/84 Patron Leroy Phillips sold fro tabs of LSD to Detective McNeil. 3/22/84 Patron George Osborne gave some marijuana to Investigator Hellett, sold 7 tablets that were supposed to be "speed," or Preludin to Investigator Hellett and sold 5 of the same tablets to Detective McNeil. 3/23/84 Employee Teresa gave some marijuana to Investigator Moore and told him she could obtain cocaine for him. 3/26/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. 4/02/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. 4/09/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ and agreed to sell Russ some LSD. 4/11/84 Employee Margie Adams agreed to sell LSD to Investigator Russ and accepted payment for same, but did not deliver anything to him that day. 4/16/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Margie Adams, sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 4/25/84 Patron George Osborne agreed to sell marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. (The actual sale took place outside the licensed premises.) The vast majority of the drug transactions described above were accomplished in a relatively discreet manner. Most of the transactions took place in a booth and involved delivery of marijuana that was covered with a towel or a napkin. During the period of the investigation which led up to this case, the police officers and DABT investigators did not see any illegal drug usage or any illegal drug transactions on the licensed premises other than the ones they were personally involved in. Mr. John Michael Whitfield, the President of Tupelo Management, Inc., and co-owner with his wife of all of the corporation's stock, takes an active role in the management of the business because it is his family's sole source of income. He usually visits this licensed premises six days per week and he spends between 40 and 50 hours per week at the licensed premises. Mr. Whitfield is well educated. His formal education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Social Welfare and a Master's degree in Social Work, both from Florida State University. After receiving his Master's degree, Mr. Whitfield was employed for three years as the Assistant Director of the Mental Health Center in Panama City, Florida. Thereafter he also worked for a year as Director of the Gerontology program at the same Mental Health Center. His work at the Mental Health Center included work in the area of drug abuse and alcoholism programs. Mr. Whitfield has never used any type of illegal drugs and is opposed to the use of illegal drugs by others. Mr. Whitfield has a very responsible attitude towards the fulfillment of his obligations and responsibilities as an alcoholic beverage licensee. For example, prior to January 1984, Mr. Whitfield had always used his own employees as doormen to check identification of patrons. Immediately after two minors were found on the licensed premises in January of 1984, Mr. Whitfield not only fired the doorman who was on duty that night, but arranged with Florida Security Service to provide extra uniformed security personnel to check the identification of patrons. When Mr. Whitfield met with DABT representatives concerning the problem with the two minors, he was advised that the two major priorities of the DABT were minors and drugs. Mr. Whitfield had several meetings with all of his employees in which he told them explicitly that he did not want to have any problems with minors or drugs on the licensed premises. He told all of the employees that they would be fired if they were responsible for any problems on the licensed premises related to minors or drugs. He also told the employees they would not be given any second chances about such matters, but would be fired for a first offense. Prior to May 2, 1904, when the Notice To Show Cause was served on the Pastime, Mr. Whitfield had never seen anything that caused him to suspect there was a drug problem at the Pastime. The security service never told him that there was a drug problem at the Pastime or that they suspected a drug problem. The uniformed police officers who walked through the Pastime practically every night never told him he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. Mr. Whitfield usually requires prospective employees to fill out a written application form. He usually does not check references, but he usually does check with prior employers. Mr. Whitfield will not hire people who have previously worked in what he considers to be dives. His usual employment practices notwithstanding, Mr. Whitfield has occasionally failed to require a written application and has occasionally failed to check the background of new employees. Some of the employees and former employees he failed to check were the causes of the present charges against Mr. Whitfield. One former employee whose background was not checked was George Osborne. Mr. Whitfield has barred several patrons in the past for improper conduct on the licensed premises and he has barred a suspected drug dealer from patronizing the Pastime. The DABT sent a letter to all alcoholic beverage licensees in south Florida in March of 1984 advising them of the DABT's priorities. The main priorities were the prevention of sales of alcoholic beverages to minors and the prevention of illegal drug activities on the licensed premises. The letter was not sent to alcoholic beverage licensees in north Florida, but will be sent to them later.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent has violated Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, ordering the Respondent to pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each of the violations charged in the first six paragraphs of the Notice To Show Cause (a total of three thousand dollars), and suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 29day 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 29th day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulations of the parties, the documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ceola Virginia Cutliff is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-06844, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Night Shift, located at 6704 N.W. 18th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On or about September 18, 1987, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) Investigators R. Campbell, R. Thompson and C. Houston entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics task force investigation. An individual named "Frances" was on duty at the bar. The investigators observed Frances sell what appeared to be narcotics to several patrons on the licensed premises. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigator Houston approached Frances and asked to purchase narcotics. Frances and Investigator Houston then went to the rear of the bar where Frances sold 2 pieces of "crack" cocaine to Investigator Houston for $10.00. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Investigator Campbell asked Frances if he could purchase narcotics. Frances presented a piece of rock cocaine which Investigator Campbell purchased for $5.00. This transaction took place in plain view of other individuals in the licensed premises. Frances, upon making a sale, would take the money and give it to a black male called "Spider" a/k/a Arthur Dorsey. Spider would then retain the money. On September 19, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. On duty that night, was a black female known as "Josephine". Spider was also on the licensed premises positioned in the D.J.'s booth, apparently trying to fix a speaker. Houston and Thompson had observed a black male, named "Gary", exchanging an unknown substance for money with various individuals, immediately outside the licensed premises. Gary, upon receiving money in exchange for the unknown substance, would go into the licensed premises and hand the money to Spider. Later that evening, Investigator Houston noticed that Spider had a brown paper bag in his hand. Gary and Spider proceeded to the bathroom on the licensed premises. After exiting the bathroom, Gary left the premises and Spider went behind the bar and began counting a large amount of money onto the counter of the bar. Spider placed the money in his back pocket. Investigator Thompson then inquired whether Spider could sell him some crack cocaine. Spider acknowledged that he could and proceeded with Thompson to the rear of the bar, where Spider sold Thompson 20 pieces of rock cocaine for $100.00. On September 22, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. Bartender Josephine-was on duty at that time along with another black female known as "Niecey". When the investigators inquired as to the whereabouts of Spider, Niecey replied that "he went home to cook up the stuff because they were very low on supply." Niecey reiterated the above statement on numerous occasions when individuals would enter the bar searching for Spider. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Spider appeared on the licensed premises with a brown paper bag in his possession. Patrons that had been waiting outside the premises came inside and Niecey locked the doors to the front and rear exits of the bar. Spider went to the D.J.'s booth and pbured the contents of the paper bag onto the counter inside the booth. The bag contained approximately 200 small zip-lock bags containing suspected crack cocaine. The patrons who had been waiting outside for the arrival of Spider then proceeded to line up in front of the D.J.'s booth in order to make purchases. Niecey would take the money from the individual patrons and Spider would deliver the crack cocaine. Investigator Houston got in line and upon arriving at the booth, purchased 20 packets of crack cocaine from Spider in exchange for $100.00. These transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On September 23, 1987, Investigators Houston, Thompson and Campbell entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The barmaid on duty was Josephine. Spider was positioned in the D.J.'s booth making sales to patrons of what appeared to be crack cocaine. Investigator Campbell walked over to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase ten (10) pieces of crack cocaine from Spider. Approximately 200 zip-lock packets of suspected crack cocaine were positioned in front of Spider. Spider motioned for Campbell" to pick them out." Campbell then picked out ten (10) packets in exchange for $50.00 which he gave to Spider. This transaction occurred in plain view of other individuals on the licensed premises. Before leaving Spider went behind the bar, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, placed it inside his pants and exited the premises. On September 29, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The bartender on duty was Josephine. Shortly after the investigators arrived, Spider appeared on the premises and went behind the bar where he took a pistol from inside his pants and placed it under the bar counter. Spider then removed a brown paper bag from under the bar counter and went to the D.J. s booth. Investigator Thompson proceeded to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine. Spider reached into the bag and gave Investigator Thompson two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Investigator Campbell approached an unknown black male who Campbell had seen selling narcotics on prior occasions. Campbell made inquiries relative to the purchase of cocaine and the unknown black male indicated that he could sell Campbell crack cocaine. The unknown male then gave two five dollar ($5.00) pieces of crack cocaine to Investigator Campbell in exchange for $10.00. This transaction took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Shortly after the investigators arrived, they observed Spider on the premises selling crack cocaine to patrons from the D.J.'s booth. Subsequently, Investigator Thompson went to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine. In response thereto, Spider left the licensed premises and proceeded to a pickup truck parked outside. Spider then retrieved a brown paper bag from the vehicle, returned to Investigator Thompson and handed him twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent licensee admitted to being an absentee owner. The Respondent did not maintain payroll, employment or other pertinent business records. The licensee was aware that drugs were a major problem in the area surrounding the premises and that drug transactions were known to take place immediately outside of the licensed premises. The licensee did nothing to prevent the incursion of narcotics trafficking onto the licensed premises. The licensee, CeoIa Cutliff, is engaged to Arthur Dorsey. Ms. Cutliff gave Mr. Dorsey a key to the premises and knew or should have known that he was operating in the capacity of a manager on the licensed premises. Josephine, the bartender generally on duty, referred to Mr. Dorsey as "boss man" and Mr. Dorsey directed her activities in the licensed premises. Mr. Dorsey a/k/a Spider utilized the licensed premises as if they were his own and was operating in the capacity of a manager at the Club Night Shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's beverage license 23-06844, Series 2-COP, located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 12th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4482 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 2. (Petitioner has two paragraphs numbered 2) Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10, 11 & 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted). COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Scott Boundy, Esquire 901 E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Daniel Bosanko Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Between June 6 and October 3, 1980, Petitioner's beverage officers and representatives of the Polk County Sheriff's Department conducted an undercover investigation of the Oasis Lounge in Ft. Meade. The business is operated by Milton Haverty who holds alcoholic beverage license No. 63-775. The manager- bartender during this period was John Haverty, the Respondent's son. On June 12, 1980, Beverage Officer West and Sgt. Allen of the Polk County Sheriff's Department visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On that date, Martha Ann Berry delivered a beer to Beverage Officer West and accepted his payment for it. Both Officer West and Sgt. Allen observed Berry serve beer to another patron. Berry had been reported to the Polk County Sheriff's Department as a runaway juvenile. However, there was no evidence presented in this proceeding to establish that she was under 18 years of age at the time she delivered the alcoholic beverages. During the June 12, 1980, undercover visit to the licensed premises, the investigators openly discussed stolen property and were subsequently approached by John Haverty who asked that they obtain a T.V. set for him. Haverty and Sgt. Allen had further discussions about the T.V. set and a "stolen" outboard motor on June 20 and 24, 1980, again on the licensed premises. On June 27, the motor which was represented as stolen property was delivered to Haverty. In exchange for the motor, Haverty gave Allen three bags of marijuana (less than 20 grams) The transaction took place on the licensed premises. A subsequent sale of electronics equipment represented to be stolen goods was made by Allen to John Haverty on the licensed premises October 3, 1980. Haverty paid Allen $75.00 for these items.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss the Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Milton Haverty Oasis Lounge 115 South Charleston Ft. Meade, Florida 33841
The Issue The issue is whether the facts alleged in the Notice to Show Cause in this case are true and whether those facts, to the extent that they are true, warrant revocation, suspension or other discipline of the license of Respondent. The Notice to Show Cause explicitly alleges several drug-related and one disorderly conduct violations on the licensed premises and implicitly alleges the Respondent's culpable responsibility for the violations under Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statues. The Notice To Show Cause also alleges that Respondent maintained the licensed premises as a place where controlled substances were illegally kept, sold, or used in violation of Sections 823.01 and 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Sections 893.13(2)(c) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Rene Tamer, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, for the licensed premises known as El Emperador, located at 36-38 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On January 27, 1986, Beverage Investigator Carlos Baixauli went to the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, he saw a black latin female walk over to a dog that was lying on the floor. Baixauli heard the woman ask the dog in spanish if he (the dog) wanted to have sex. The woman then fondled the dog's penis for approximately 20 minutes. Night manager Luis Tamer was present when this incident occurred. On February 5, 1986, Investigator Baixauli, while inside of the licensed premises of El Emperador, arranged to purchase one gram of cocaine from a white latin male, known as El Indio (the Indian). El Indio told Baixauli that he needed the $60.00 "up front." When Baixauli expressed concern as to whether El Indio would return with the cocaine or his money, El Indio stated that he worked at El Emperador, was always around and could be trusted. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio left the premises, returned and handed Baixauli a small plastic package of cocaine wrapped in a white napkin. Baixauli opened the napkin and conspicuously inspected the package of cocaine by holding it up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was present and behind the bar at the time. On February 10, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While Baixauli was at the bar talking to on-duty manager Luis Tamer, El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he wanted to buy some "yeyo," a Spanish term for cocaine. Baixauli agreed to purchase one gram of cocaine and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio subsequently returned and again interrupted a conversation between Baixauli and Luis Tamer. El Indio handed Baixauli a matchbook, from which Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed to his partner Garcia. El Indio told Baixauli that he could be found at El Emperador between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. performing clean-up duties and at 11:00 A.M. stocking the beer coolers or running errands for Rene Tamer. On February 12, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, Rene Tamer asked Baixauli: "Are you still working for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages?", to which Baixauli feigned ignorance and replied that he did not know what Rene Tamer was talking about. Rene Tamer, Luis Tamer and other employees then briefly retired to the kitchen where Baixauli observed them "looking out" at him as if to get a better view. El Indio arrived at El Emperador at approximately 2:00 P.M. and began stacking beers and cleaning the premises. El Indio asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine and Baixauli handed him $60.00 in front of Luis Tamer. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine from the matchbook, held it up while inspecting it and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Luis Tamer was at the front counter during the transaction. On February 13, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. El Indio asked Baixauli if he could bring him anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for one gram of cocaine. At approximately 4:00 P.M. El Indio returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package containing cocaine, which Baixauli held up and tapped with his finger. Luis Tamer, the manager, was standing behind the bar and observed Baixauli's inspection of the cocaine. Luis Tamer smiled and said nothing. On February 17, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of Emperador. Baixauli went to the bar and struck up a conversation with Luis Tamer. El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he needed anything, to which Baixauli replied "yes" and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio returned with some cocaine while Baixauli was still speaking with Luis Tamer. Baixauli removed the plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up to inspect it. Once again, Luis Tamer just smiled. On February 24, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Baixauli went over to off-duty employee Camaquay and struck up a conversation. El Indio approached them and asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine. Baixauli responded that he did and gave El Indio $60.00, at which time Camaquay started laughing and said that he had been told that Baixauli was a "Narc" and must be setting up El Indio. El Indio later returned to where Baixauli was seated at the bar talking to Camaquay and manager, Luis Tamer, and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up for inspection, tapping it with his finger. Neither Camaquay nor Luis Tamer said anything to Baixauli. Later on in the evening of February 24, 1986, Baixauli asked Camaquay if El Indio was coming back to El Emperador. Camaquay told Baixauli not to worry, because he, Camaquay, could get cocaine from the same source as El Indio. Baixauli, after obtaining change from Luis Tamer, gave Camaquay $30.00 for a half-gram of cocaine. Camaquay later returned and tossed a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the bag at eye level and tapped it with his fingers in view of manager Luis Tamer and other patrons. On February 26, 1986, Investigator Baixauli went to El Emperador and asked Luis Tamer if Camaquay was in. Camaquay went over to Baixauli, showed him a plastic bag containing marijuana and asked if he wanted to smoke. Baixauli said no. Camaquay then went into the restroom from which Baixauli then smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Manager Luis Tamer asked Baixauli where Camaquay was and Baixauli told him that Camaquay was in the bathroom smoking marijuana. Later at El Emperador on February 26, 1986, El Indio approached Baixauli and asked if he needed anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for some cocaine. El Indio later returned and gave Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook, held it up and tapped it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was standing behind the bar looking at Baixauli and Camaquay was standing by the pool table looking at Baixauli. After Baixauli received his cocaine from El Indio on February 26, 1986, Camaquay approached several patrons playing pool and asked if they wanted to buy drugs. Camaquay showed them a plastic package of marijuana which he took from his pocket, in full view of Baixauli, and Luis Tamer the manager, who were all looking in his direction. After Camaquay's attempt to sell marijuana to the pool playing patrons, he approached Baixauli and asked if he could bring him anything. When Baixauli agreed, Camaquay left the premises and shortly returned, tossing a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli and Luis Tamer, who was standing behind the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the plastic bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 4, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Luis Tamer yelled to El Indio that his "friends" were there. El Indio approached Baixauli and Baixauli gave him $60.00. While El Indio was out obtaining Baixauli's order, on-duty employee Camaquay went over to Baixauli and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and handed Camaquay $30.00 over the bar. El Indio returned shortly with a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Camaquay later returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli raised the bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 11, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited El Emperador. Luis Tamer was present and tending the bar. El Indio approached Baixauli and asked him if he needed any cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and gave El Indio $30.00 for a half gram of cocaine. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook containing a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli performed his usual post-sale inspection of the cocaine by holding the package up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Rene Tamer. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mr. Rene Tamer El Emperador 36-38 Ocean Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33149 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney Secretary The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented in whether an agent or employee of Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administration Action issued September 10, 1997, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-01498, series 2APS, for an establishment known as My Super Store ("the licensed premises"), located at 701 South Martin Luther King Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Daytona Beach Police Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after it received numerous complaints of illegal activity at the licensed premises. Paris Anthony is a black female born on June 13, 1977, and was 19 years old on May 5 through May 21, 1997. On May 5, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The bottle bore the manufacturer's trade mark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the cashier. The cashier accepted payment for the beer, but did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. When Ms. Anthony asked for a receipt for the beer, the cashier, in a raised voice, commented to Ms. Anthony, "Well, you're not old enough, are you?" or words to that effect. Ms. Anthony answered that she was not, but was nonetheless permitted to leave the premises with the bottle of beer. During the conversation between the cashier and Ms. Anthony, Respondent was seated an arm's length away from the cashier. Respondent was not talking to anyone at the time. Although Respondent looked up at Ms. Anthony and the cashier during the exchange reported in paragraph 5, above, he took no action in response to the assertion that Ms. Anthony was not of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages. On May 7, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle of beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. On May 21, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5 and May 7, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. At hearing, nine months after the incident, Ms. Anthony appeared to be a young woman of an age that a prudent person would check to determine whether she was 21 years old. Respondent testified he had no employees at the time of the violations, but allowed "volunteers" to help him on the licensed premises, including Benette Lisa Brown. According to the Respondent, he was always on site, and in charge. The "volunteers," according to Respondent, did not work the cash register; however, Respondent's testimony was not consistent with Ms. Anthony's and that of a former "volunteer." Respondent's testimony was not credible. The person at the sales counter was working under the supervision of Respondent who was present on the premises each occasion Ms. Anthony purchased beer. At the time of the violations, Respondent did not have signs posted on the licensed premises informing customers that the vendor had a policy against serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons and informing customers that the purchase of alcoholic beverages by an underage person or the illegal use of or trafficking in controlled substances will result in ejection from the licensed premises and prosecution. The training of employees or agents was inadequate and their supervision poor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensee No. 74-01498, series 2APS, be suspended for a period of 30 days, and it is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joan Lowe, Esquire 520 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-2188 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Respondent sold alcoholic beverages in violation of a municipal ordinance concerning the hours of sale of such beverages and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state agency charged with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in Florida. Respondent, Ferrell A. Melton and Nora J. Melton, d/b/a Prince Grocery (Respondent), is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 30-00004, Series 2APS. This license authorizes the Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Prince Grocery, located at 705 West Columbus Drive, Tampa, Florida (licensed premises). Prince Grocery is a neighborhood store. The City of Tampa Code, Article I, Section 3-3, prohibits places within its city limits and licensed by the State of Florida to sell alcoholic beverages after 3:00 a.m. and before 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. On September 21, 1997, Officer Anthony Pullara of the Tampa Police Department was dispatched to Respondent's licensed premises at approximately 3:00 a.m. Officer Pullara was dispatched to investigate complaints that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages after hours. When Officer Pullara began the investigation of Respondent, he did not immediately go on the licensed premises, but rather positioned himself directly across the street from and facing the licensed premises. This location placed Officer Pullara about 200 feet from the licensed premises and gave him a clear view of the outside of the store and the parking lot. To aid his vision from this distance and to get a view of what was occurring inside the licensed premises, Officer Pullara used binoculars. On Sunday, September 21, 1997, between 3:00 a.m. and 3:55 a.m., Officer Pullara observed several persons enter the licensed premises. In each instance, the person would go to the front door of the premises and then knock on the door. Respondent, Nora Melton, who was inside the premises, would unlock the door and allow the person to come inside. After a short time inside, the patron would leave the premises carrying a brown paper bag that appeared to contain something. Officer Pullara could not see the contents of the bags. However, from the size and shape of the bags, the bags appeared to contain objects about the size of either bottles of beer or a quart of beer. Although Officer Pullara never verified the contents of any of the bags, he suspected that the bags contained beer. At approximately 3:55 a.m. on Sunday, September 21, 1997, George Munoz went to the front door of the licensed premises and appeared to knock on the door. Thereafter, George Munoz entered the premises. From Officer Pullara's vantage point, he observed Respondent and Munoz in the licensed premises appearing to engage in a friendly conversation. Officer Pullara also observed Respondent gather some bags from the front register area and then escort Munoz to the rear of the store. For the brief time Respondent and Munoz were in the rear of the store, they were out of Officer Pullara's view. When they returned to the front area of the licensed premises to the area where the cash register was located, Officer Pullara observed Munoz give something to Respondent. It then appeared to Officer Pullara that Respondent escorted Munoz to the front door and unlocked it so that he could leave. Munoz then exited the licensed premises carrying a brown paper bag. From Officer Pullara's observation's, the transaction with Munoz appeared to be similar to the transactions that Officer Pullara had observed between Respondent and other individuals who had come to the licensed premises between 3:00 a.m. and 3:55 a.m. on this same day. As Munoz was leaving the licensed premises, Respondent came to the front door and she and Munoz continued to engage in a conversation. Due to his position, Officer could not hear what the Respondent and Munoz were saying to each other, but it appeared to him to be a friendly conversation. After Munoz left the licensed premises, he went toward the car from which he had earlier exited. However, prior to getting into the vehicle Munoz pulled down the brown bag and a plastic bag contained therein, revealing two quarts bottles bearing the name "Schlitz Malt Liquor." In describing this event, Officer Pullara testified that "[Munoz] held them up in the air in front of his face, as if showing the other occupant of the vehicle that he had in fact purchased the beer." Officer Pullara then drove his police car into the parking lot of the licensed premises and observed Munoz get into his vehicle with the two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor. After Munoz pulled out of the parking lot, Officer Pullara stopped him. Officer Pullara then confiscated the two quarts of malt liquor. After he confiscated the malt liquor from Munoz, Officer Pullara returned to the licensed premises and arrested Respondent Nora Melton for after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent was charged with the after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages and resisting an officer. Munoz did not testify at trial and Respondent Nora Melton was subsequently acquitted of the charge related to after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages. As a result of the events of September 21, 1997, Respondent was convicted of resisting arrest although adjudication was withheld on this charge. There is no dispute that, on September 21, 1997, Munoz got two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor from the licensed premises. However, Respondent's version of how Munoz came in possession of the malt liquor is at odds with that of Officer Pullara. According to Respondent, a female customer who had been in the licensed premises earlier telephoned Respondent and indicated that Respondent had forgotten to give the customer the cigarettes which she had purchased. Respondent knew this customer. However, when the customer called, Respondent did not recall whether she had given the customer the cigarettes. Nonetheless, Respondent gave the customer the benefit of the doubt and told her that if she came "right now . . . I'll give them to you." After the telephone conversation, the customer arrived at the licensed premises to retrieve the cigarettes. Respondent went to the front door and unlocked it to let the customer in, but did not relock the front door once the customer was inside. After Respondent gave the customer the cigarettes, the customer decided to purchase lottery tickets, which were located on the front counter area of the licensed premises. During the course of these transactions, Respondent and the customer engaged in a casual conversation in the front counter area of the licensed premises. While Respondent and the customer were engaged in conversation, Munoz, who appeared to be drunk, entered the premises through the unlocked front door and then reached around the customer for a bag. Respondent had known Munoz for several years and warned the customer that Munoz was a "dangerous person." As Munoz proceeded to the back of the store where the beer was located, Respondent told him that he could not purchase any beer because it was after 3:00 a.m. Munoz told Respondent, "Wait and see what I do." Munoz continued to the back of the store, moved a barricade that was in front of the beer, and removed two quarts of malt liquor. When Munoz returned to the front of the licensed premises, Respondent ordered him to give her the beer because he was not going to "[take] it outside." Respondent came from behind the counter where she had been standing, got between the customer and Munoz, and tried to grab the beer from Munoz. Munoz refused to give Respondent the beer and began "turning around and swinging the beer at [Respondent]." While Respondent was attempting to take the beer from Munoz, she thought of using a bat to break the beer bottles but decided against doing that for fear that he would hurt her. Respondent's concern for her own safety was based on her knowledge or belief that on an earlier occasion Munoz had broken his girlfriend's arm and "knocked her eye out." Respondent told Munoz that if he left the premises with the beer, she would "charge" him with shoplifting. Despite Respondent's threats and attempts to grab the malt liquor from Munoz, he left the licensed premises with the two quarts of malt liquor. While in the parking lot, Munoz removed or lowered the bag and displayed the two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor, by waving it in front of his face. At the time of the investigation which is the subject of these proceedings, Respondent had known Munoz for many years. Although Munoz had been a customer of the licensed premises, Respondent has had problems with him. About six years ago, Munoz gave Respondent a "bad check" which he never paid. Respondent believes that her problems with Munoz are due to his anger toward her because she always asks him about paying the check. On Monday morning, at about 11:00 a.m., September 22, 1997, Respondent went to the police department to file an incident report regarding Munoz taking the malt liquor from the licensed premises. Immediately after filing that incident report, Respondent went to the Internal Affairs Office and filed a complaint against Officer Pullara. The basis of Respondent's complaint against Officer Pullara was that he had mistreated her when he arrested her on September 21, 1997. Petitioner filed the subject Administrative Action against Respondent based on a complaint and report from the Tampa Police Department regarding an alleged violation of a City of Tampa Code provision relating to the hours that alcoholic beverages may be sold. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Nora Melton stayed at the licensed premises. She began staying there because of the increased number of burglaries occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent usually locked the front door to the premises at about 10:00 p.m., but the business did not close at this time. If someone who Respondent knew came to the front door of the licensed premises after 10:00 p.m., she would open it and let that person come inside to make a purchase. Since the September 21, 1997, incident, however, the shutters to the licensed premises are put down no later than 2:30 a.m. and no customers are allowed into the premises. The testimony of Respondent was credible and was unrebutted by Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledged that George Munoz has a long criminal record dating back to July 10, 1979, with his last arrest listed as July 23, 1997, about two months before the subject incident. The records reviewed at hearing by Agent Thompson reflected only arrests and not the disposition of the arrests. According to the records, Munoz has been arrested for: unlawful use of a weapon; theft; at least three incidents involving the purchase of cocaine; delivery and control of cocaine; disorderly conduct; petty theft; criminal mischief; burglary of a structure; burglary of a dwelling; at least two incidents involving probation violations; escape; domestic assault; domestic battery; at least two incidents of trespass; battery; and trespass of a structure. The record also revealed that a warrant had been recently issued against Munoz for domestic violence, aggravated battery, and driving under the influence. In an Administrative Action signed on June 2, 1998, Respondent was charged with violating a city ordinance relating to the hours that alcoholic beverages may be sold. The matter was disposed of by an informal hearing and Respondent was fined $250.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order (1) finding that Respondent did not violate Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages after hours in violation the Tampa City Code; and (2) dismissing the charge in the Administrative Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nora J. Melton, pro se 705 West Columbus Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether petitioner's application to change its corporate officers should be denied because the proposed officer allegedly lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Village Zoo holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-839, Series 4- COP SR, authorizing it to serve alcoholic beverages at its bar (the "licensed premises") at 900 Sunrise Lane, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 22, 1982, the Village Zoo filed an application with DABT to change corporate officers by adding James C. Dowd as a vice president1. While this application was pending, James C. Dowd was employed as one of the managers at the Village Zoo. One of his duties was to help the bartender serve alcoholic beverages on an as-needed basis. On November 5, 1982, undercover Beverage Officer Tom Wheeler, 24, entered the licensed premises to investigate complaints of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons--persons under the age of 19. He paid a cover charge at the door, his identification was not checked. Inside, he saw 50-75 young patrons crowded in the area of the second floor bar. Two persons were tending bar, one of whom was James C. Dowd. Officer Wheeler saw two young patrons, William Esler, 17, and Kelly Heatherman, 18, approach the bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd, who then served them two alcoholic beverages. (William Esler ordered and was served a Whiskey and Seven- up; Kelly Heatherman ordered and was served a Budweiser beer). Mr. Dowd served them these drinks without asking their age or checking their identification. When these two underaged individuals ordered the drinks, they were standing at the bar and in plain view of Mr. Dowd; they were neither standing behind others nor hidden from view. After Mr. Dowd served these two drinks, he was arrested and charged with the crime of serving alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 19. When Kelly Heatherman and William Esler, the two underaged persons, entered the premises that evening, they paid a cover charge but their age was not questioned at the entry door. Neither was their identification checked. The Village Zoo has a reputation in the community as a popular gathering place for young people. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman had been there before. William Esler had been there twice, prior to the November 5, 1982, incident, and once since. His identification had never been checked, although he did not order a drink on his last visit. Kelly Heatherman had been there every week from approximately September (1982) to November 5, 1982. During most of his visits, he ordered alcoholic beverages. One time, his identification was checked at the door and he was turned away. Since the November 5, 1982, incident, he has returned to the Village Zoo a couple of times. James C. Dowd was aware of Heatherman's continued patronage of the Village Zoo and described Heatherman as a regular customer. Heatherman continued to order and was served alcoholic beverages during his visits to the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982. After November 5, 1982, Heatherman continued to enter the Village Zoo without having his identification checked, despite the fact he was identified to the Village Zoo and James C. Dowd, on November 5, 1982, as being under the legal age (19) to possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman were, as of the date of the administrative hearing on this case, under the age of 19 years. James C. Dowd knew or should have known that Kelly Heatherman's consumption of alcoholic beverages served by the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982, was contrary to the Beverage Law. (This paragraph contains findings of fact which are in addition to those found by the Hearing Officer. Such additional facts are not contrary to those found by the Hearing Officer, rather they amplify the same and are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of sworn testimony of Kelly Heatherman, William Esler and James C. Dowd). The Village Zoo had an announced policy prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons and prohibiting their entry onto the licensed premises. To enforce this policy, two persons were posted at the entryway to check identification and collect cover charges from patrons. Peter Balcunas, and off-duty Fort Lauderdale policeman, was also hired to provide security and assistance to the door-checkers. He was ordinarily posted near the front door, outside the premises. Under this Village Zoo policy, the two door-checkers had the primary responsibility to check the identification of patrons and prevent underaged persons from entering the premises. All employees, however, had the duty to check the identification of any patron if there was any question or doubt about whether the individual was of drinking age. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman fall within this "questionable or doubtful" category. From their demeanor and outward appearance at hearing, it is difficult to determine their true age. Their faces are mature for their age and they could reasonably pass as 18, 19 or 20-year olds. On the evening of November 5, 1982, Kelly Heatherman and William Esler entered the premises, walking past the door-checkers and Officer Balcunas. They then proceeded to the second floor bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd. Their age was not questioned and their identification was not checked. The Village Zoo's announced policy of forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, including steps taken to enforce it, compares favorably with those of similar businesses in the area serving alcoholic beverages. James C. Dowd, the person allegedly lacking in good moral character, has a reputation in the community as an honest trustworthy, hardworking and law- abiding man. He attends church regularly. His business associates view him as a man who honors his financial obligations and who has good moral character. Mr. Dowd does not recall serving alcoholic beverages to William Esler and Kelly Heatherman on November 5, 1982. There was a crowd of customers near the bar at the time, and he was helping the bartender serve drinks as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in his haste, he violated the Village Zoo policy. He served alcoholic beverages to two youthful-looking persons whose age was difficult to determine, without inquiring as to their age or checking their identification. There is no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. (Two sentences contained in the Recommended Order at this place, were deleted as such constitute conclusions of law, not of fact). Although there was evidence that the two underaged persons had been served alcoholic beverages at the Village Zoo prior to and after November 5, 1982, it was not shown that Mr. Dowd served them or that (as one of the managers) he was culpably responsible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Village Zoo's application to change corporate officers be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1983.
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
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1983, Mr. Luther Thomas, petitioner in this case, who operates an automotive repair shop in Gainesville, Florida, entered the Respondent's local office and secured an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License (DBR Form 700-1) and the related Personal Questionnaire (DBR Form 710L). These forms were filled out, signed under oath by Petitioner and submitted to Respondent for processing on March 28, 1983. At the time the forms were submitted, the questionnaire had on it a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been arrested for or charged with a violation of a felony law or misdemeanor law of the State of Florida, any other state, or the United States, excluding minor traffic laws. This form was marked "No" by Petitioner. Whether he did it at the time of submittal or when it was brought to his attention by a beverage officer who came to his place of business is in question, but when it was done is immaterial. The fact remains that Petitioner stated "No" when in fact, according to his testimony at the hearing, he had been charged several times: once for failure to pay support, and twice for driving while under the influence. Also, in addition, in 1968, he appeared before a judge on an allegation of assault with intent to commit homicide, but was never arrested. He voluntarily reported to the courthouse without being placed under arrest, and the allegation was dismissed. However, since Petitioner could not state with any particularity what actually happened, and since Respondent did not produce any evidence of a charge or arrest, this incident is not considered as being reportable. The DWIs and the failures to pay support were not felonies at the time of commission. Sometime after the submission of the application, Beverage Officer Woodrow came out to Petitioner's place of business to do a sketch of the layout which was needed to process the application. During this visit, Woodrow indicated to Petitioner that they needed to talk about his arrest record. At this point, Petitioner responded to the effect that he "ain't never been arrested." The prior involvement for assault with intent to commit homicide was known to Respondent and considered at the time it issued him a prior beverage license in 1973 or 1974. Mr. Thomas felt that since he had not been arrested then, since the allegation had been dismissed, and since he had previously been issued a license with this information known to Respondent, there was no reason to list it again. This former license lapsed when Mr. Thomas went out of business after a heart attack. It was not disciplined or revoked by Respondent. The questionnaire form which Petitioner filled out contains, in the oath, the reference to Section 559.791, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides that a false statement in the questionnaire or application constitutes grounds for denial of a license. The "pending and undetermined criminal and felony charges" referred to in Respondent's letter of denial, according to Petitioner, related to three separate worthless checks. These charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and resolved by Petitioner making restitution. No jail time or fine was imposed. Mr. Thomas is presently facing misdemeanor charges in Alachua County, Florida, in violation of Section 837.06, Florida Statutes (1981) , based on the same alleged false statement in the questionnaire as are used as basis for denial of his license here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Luther Thomas, doing business as Lake Road Beverages, be issued an alcoholic beverage license as applied for. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Luther Thomas 2824 N.E. 12th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
