Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Giraldo Gonzalez, d/b/a LaGoma Restaurant, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-03475, series 2- COP, for the premises known as LaGoma Restaurant, 9550 N.W. South River Drive, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On May 30, 1986, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), following a complaint from another agency, began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. On that date, DABT Investigators Carlos Baixauli and Hector Garcia, operating under cover, entered the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. During the course of their visit they observed the on-duty bartender, Annie, deliver money to a male patron and receive from him a matchbook containing a small plastic packet of white powder. Annie subsequently delivered the matchbook to an unidentified male who was standing outside the front door of the premises. On June 3, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises and again seated themselves at the bar. Investigator Garcia asked the on-duty bartender, Mindy, if she could get him some "perico" (Spanish slang for cocaine) Mindy subsequently approached Investigator Garcia and, sitting on his lap, pressed a small plastic bag of cocaine into his hand. Garcia paid Mindy $50.00 for the substance. 1/ On June 4, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises. As they seated themselves at the bar, Investigator Garcia observed two patrons playing the video poker machine and shortly thereafter saw Respondent open the machine, erase the accumulated points, and pay the patrons and unknown quantity of money from the cash register. Later, while seated at the bar, Investigator Garcia engaged the on-duty bartender, Mindy, in conversation. Mindy placed a napkin on the bar in front of Garcia, poured cocaine onto it from a plastic package she had removed from her pocket, and invited Garcia to try some "perico". At that time there were a number of patrons, including a family with small children, seated proximate to Garcia. The investigators went to the bathroom and secured the cocaine in an evidence bag. Upon their return from the bathroom, the investigators heard screaming and arguing near the bar. They observed a male patron approach another male patron, who was carrying a gym bag which he claimed contained a shotgun, and demand that he put the gun away or use it. Respondent attempted to quell the disturbance; however, the patron with the bag swung it against the other patron's head, causing a severe cut and profuse bleeding. As the two patrons wrestled to the floor among broken bottles and glass, Respondent picked up the gym bag and hid it in the kitchen. After the fight broke up, Respondent's employees immediately cleaned up the premises. When the police arrived to investigate the disturbance they found no evidence of the mayhem that had occurred, and were assured by Respondent that only a miner altercation had taken place. Contrary to Respondent's assurances, a real donnybrook had occurred, and the patron struck with the gym bag had suffered severe injuries and was, at that moment, in the hospital. After the police left, another on-duty bartender, Debra (Mindy's sister), approached the investigators while they were seated at the bar and, laughing, began talking about the fight. During the course of their conversation, Debra removed a straw from her shoe and a five dollar bill from her blouse. She unfolded the bill on the bar, revealing a white powdered substance, and snorted a portion of the substance through the straw. Several patrons, together with bartender Mindy, were present at this time. Later that evening, Mindy handed Investigator Garcia a small plastic bag of cocaine, telling him to go try some. The investigators went into the bathroom where they transferred a portion of the cocaine into a plastic bag for evidence and returned the remainder to Mindy." 2/ On June 6, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the premises, and assumed their usual seats at the bar. A patron seated next to Investigator Garcia introduced himself as Eduardo and asked Garcia if he wanted to buy some good perico. When Garcia agreed, Eduardo stood, removed a small plastic bag of cocaine from his pocket, laid it on the bar, and received $45.00 from Garcia. Several patrons, together with the on-duty bartender, Maritza, observed the transaction. Later, Investigator Baixauli asked on-duty bartender Debra if she could get him some cocaine. When Debra agreed, Baixauli gave her $50.00 and she walked over to three male patrons. Upon her return, Debra placed a plastic package of cocaine on the bar in front of the investigator. Several patrons smiled at Baixauli after observing the transaction. Following this sale, off- duty waitress Jenny approached Investigator Baixauli and told him she was sure he would like the perico since she was the supplier. Subsequently, Jenny joined a male patron seated down the bar, and the two snorted a white powder off the bar in the presence of numerous patrons. On June 9, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises. The investigators began speaking with patron Eduardo, regarding the purchase of more cocaine. The investigators left the bar for a short time with Eduardo, but returned before him. When Eduardo entered the premises, he was carrying a large plastic bag containing approximately one ounce of marijuana. Eduardo placed the bag on the bar in front of the investigators, and told them the marijuana was on the house. On-duty bartenders Esperanza and Candy, together with Respondent, were proximate to this transaction. On June 10, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises. During the course of their visit, Investigator Baixauli observed a male patron playing the video poker machine who suddenly exclaimed "I won". Respondent told the patron to "leave it on 600 and I'll pay you". Respondent then paid the patron $150.00 from the cash register. The investigators again returned to the premises on June 12, 1986. As Investigator Garcia spoke with off-duty waitress Jenny, she removed a small change purse from her boot, which she opened to reveal several small packages of white powder. Jenny told Garcia she would sell him some for $50.00, as opposed to $60.00, if he would agree to let on-duty bartender Maritza have some. When Garcia agreed, Jenny and Haritza went to the restroom. Jenny subsequently returned and handed the packet of cocaine to Investigator Garcia. Later, a patron identified as Roger sat next to Investigator Garcia and Jenny, and purchased a packet of cocaine from her. Roger subsequently handed Jenny the packet and told her to let her friends try some. Investigator Garcia went to the restroom, secured a sample of the cocaine for evidence, and returned the remainder to Jenny. On June 16, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises and took their usual seats at the bar; on duty were bartenders Mindy and Debra. Investigator Baixauli observed Respondent standing at the video poker machine watching a patron play. When the patron had achieved a score of 400 points, he told Respondent to "credit me 50 on the machine and give me the rest". Respondent credited the machine 50 points, and paid the patron an unknown amount of money from the cash register. Meanwhile, Eduardo seated himself next to Investigator Garcia and asked if he wanted to buy some good cocaine. Garcia told Eduardo that he was a little short of cash, however, since Mindy volunteered to go halves, Garcia agreed. Garcia gave Mindy $25.00, she borrowed $10.00 from Debra, and gave Eduardo a total of $50.00 in exchange for a plastic packet of cocaine. Mindy held the packet up for Debra to see, whereupon they went to the restroom. Upon their return, Mindy placed the packet of cocaine on the bar in front of Garcia. On June 18, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises, and took their usual seats at the bar. While Garcia was seated next to, and speaking with, off-duty waitress Jenny, Jenny summoned Respondent. While Respondent was present, Garcia asked Jenny if she had a small amount of perico he could have since he was short of cash. At that point, Respondent moved about 3-4 feet away to speak with a patron. Jenny removed a plastic packet of cocaine from her pocket and placed it on the bar. As Garcia reached to pick up the packet, he observed Respondent looking in his direction. As Garcia continued to speak with Jenny, a male patron approached her and asked if she had his "stuff". Jenny handed the man a plastic packet containing a white powder and he paid her an unknown quantity of money. Investigator Garcia subsequently observed the patron snort a portion of the white powder through a rolled up dollar bill while standing in the pool room area. A number of patrons were playing pool or standing in the area during his activity. The investigators returned to the premises on June 20, 1986, and observed Respondent pay off on the video poker machine. Later in the evening, while Respondent was speaking to Sixto Gonzalez, Sixto called Mindy over and handed her a marijuana cigarette. Mindy and her sister Debra went to the service door and smoked the marijuana. On June 23, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises. After assuming their usual seats, Investigator Baixauli asked on-duty bartender Debra if she had any cocaine for sale. Debra replied that she did not, but that she could get some from another on-duty bartender, Esperanza. Baixauli gave Debra $50.00, and she secured a plastic packet of cocaine from Esperanza and delivered it to Baixauli. Several patrons, who were speaking with Esperanza at the time, observed the transaction. On June 27, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises for the last time. Seated in their usual seats, Investigator Baixauli counted out $50.00 in front of on-duty bartender Mindy. Mindy immediately picked up the money and, walking away, announced "it's perico time". Baixauli observed Mindy approach a male known as Flaco and then go the restroom. When she returned to Baixauli, she handed him a plastic packet of cocaine. Baixauli held the packet up in the presence of other patrons, and while Respondent was standing behind the bar. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours and at times when Respondent was present. At no time did Respondent or his employees express any concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, all of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used and sold on the licensed premises, on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Neither Respondent, nor any of his employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale or use of controlled substances.
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lois Davis, who does business under the name of The Cotton Club, holds License No. 60-00245, a Series 2-COP license issued by petitioner authorizing her to sell beer and wine for consumption on the licensed premises, which are located at 233 Southwest Fifth Street, Belle Glade, Florida. At one time Ms. Davis held License No. 60-576 which authorized sale of hard liquor as well as wine and beer for consumption on the premises of The Cotton Club. On January 25, 1980, as a result of foreclosure proceedings against respondent's landlords, an order was entered directing that "all right, title and interest to Alcoholic Beverage License 60-576" be conveyed to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Daniel. Robert Daniel, et ux. v. Gilbert Adams, et al. v. Lois Davis, No. 78-4667 CA (L) 01 G (Fla. 17th Cir.). At the time respondent applied for her current license, shortly before the previous license expired, she asked that the latter be extended so that she could sell off her stock of hard or spirituous liquors. Petitioner's Lieutenant Little explained that the matter was before a court but agreed to approach the judge. In September of 1980, L. Dell Grieve, a six-year veteran of the Belle Glade Police Department, visited The Cotton Club, saw liquor in a storeroom, and told the bartender that it should be removed. The bartender protested that it was all right to store the liquor while something was being worked out about the license, or words to that effect. Beverage Officers Ramey and Rabie accompanied Officer Grieve on November 15, 1980, on a visit to The Cotton Club, where they found Andre Lavince Moore, respondent's son, tending bar. In the storeroom, they found numerous bottles of spirituous liquors which they confiscated. Petitioner's Exhibit No. Wine and beer were stored in a separate place in the same storeroom. At no time after she lost License No. 60-576 did respondent or her agents or employees sell any alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer at The Cotton Club, or have any intention of doing so without petitioner's permission.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Lt. J. E. Little 725 South Bronough Street Post Office Drawer 2750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Lois Davis The Cotton Club 233 Southwest Fifth Street Belle Glade, Florida
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the amended notice to show cause dated November 27, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent, Jose Julio Alves, owns or holds an alcoholic beverage license for a business known as Royal Garden which is a restaurant located at 1257 U.S. 1 South, Rockledge, Florida 32955. The license for the premises, #15-01801 2-COP, was obtained in 1989. Respondent is originally from Portugal, but he has resided in Brevard County for several years. Respondent speaks and understands English and has successfully handled the business operation of the Royal Garden since 1989. In April of 1989, Respondent executed a form entitled "APPLICATION FOR AND CERTIFICATION OF A PERMIT TO IMPORT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INTO FLORIDA". That form represented that the alcoholic beverages to be imported had been legally purchased outside the U.S.A. by Respondent personally, and that the shipment to his Florida residence was for his personal consumption. Along with that application Respondent submitted the appropriate excise tax amount to cover 24 cases of red port wine. The subject wine bore the name "Vintage Port" 1985. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 561.11 and 562.15, Florida Statutes, together with Rule 7A-2.10, Florida Administrative Code, the Department granted Respondent permission to bring the beverages into the State of Florida and acknowledged that the excise taxes on the beverages had been paid. On or about August 8, 1990, Agent Rigsby conducted an inspection of the Royal Garden restaurant and was accompanied by the Respondent. During that inspection, Agent Rigsby found and seized 11 bottles of Vintage Port 1985 wine which were located within the restaurant's walk-in cooler. Additionally, Agent Rigsby seized two empty bottles bearing the same labels from a shelf outside the restaurant's office. Since the bottles did not bear indications that taxes had been paid, the Department charged Respondent with having possession of alcoholic beverages for which the taxes had not been paid and for purchasing same from an unlicensed vendor. According to Respondent, all taxes due and payable on the wine described in paragraphs 3 and 4 had been properly paid at the time of its importation into Florida. Respondent acknowledged that the wine was not purchased from a licensed vendor since he admitted that the port seized on the Royal Garden premises was from the cases he had imported for personal consumption. Why and how the wine made its way from Respondent's residence to Respondent's restaurant is less than clear. According to Respondent, the wine was stored in the restaurant's walk-in cooler and was only used for cooking or as a complimentary drink to friends or special customers. Respondent maintains that the wine was never sold to customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, in accordance with Section 561.29(3), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin L. Suarez Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 George B. Turner 65 E. Nasa Boulevard, Suite 106 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "luxury" paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: With regard to paragraph 1 it is accepted that Agent Rigsby conducted an investigation of the Royal Garden in August, 1990. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the Respondent's admissions. The Respondent admitted he gave the wine to his special customers/friends as a complimentary drink and that such gifts sometimes occurred incidental to their meals at the restaurant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as hearsay, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are rejected as irrelevant.
The Issue Whether petitioner qualifies for a II-C Club alcoholic beverage license, which is issued to Nonprofit organizations or clubs devoted to promoting community, municipal, or county development or any phase of community, municipal or county development.
Findings Of Fact Code I is a nonprofit Florida corporation located at 3420-31 West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In February, 1982, it applied for a II-C or Club alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.20(7)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 7A-3.19, Florida Administrative Code. On August 3, 1982, DABT denied its application, asserting that it was not qualified for licensing under tie statute and rule. Code I was incorporated as a Florida nonprofit corporation in 1962. Ms. Bessie Walton and her former husband formed the corporation to raise funds to build a home for the elderly. With funds subsequently generated by the corporation, Tropical Home for Senior Citizens was constructed and continues to be operated in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1974, the corporation became inactive. According to several members of Code I, the goals and purposes of the Club are to support and make contributions to benevolent causes. This testimony, however, is based upon representations made to them by others concerning the goals and purposes of the Club. (Testimony of Troutman, Reddick) In the past, Code I has donated funds to numerous organizations or allowed them to use its facilities--without charge. These organizations, included Broward County Youth Football, Greater Bethel AME Church, Tropical Home for Senior Citizens, North Fork Elementary School, and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity (for scholarships). It has also sponsored foster families. Code I has charged, however, some organizations $175 for the use of its facilities. (Testimony of Troutman) The articles of Incorporation of Code I state that the objectives of the organization are to provide a meeting place for recreational purposes of its members, to provide aid and comfort for its members in case of sickness or death, and to assist in any other matters pertaining to the highest orders of American Citizenship. For carrying out these purposes, the corporation is authorized to buy, hold and sell real and personal property, to invest funds, and to construct and operate social club houses. (P-1) Neither the articles nor the bylaws of the corporation explicitly, or by reasonable inference, dedicate it to promoting community, municipal, or county development. (P-1, P-4) According to its treasurer, its main purpose is to provide a facility where the public can enjoy an evening on the town in a conducive club atmosphere. Membership is open to the general public. An alcoholic beverage license would enable the Club to earn additional funds for its operations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Code I's application for a II-C Club alcoholic beverage license be DENIED, without prejudice to its right to reapply after amendment of its charter and bylaws. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of February, 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 25th day of February, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) against Eden Supply, LLC (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. BEV5810598, series 13CT, which is commonly referred to as a "caterer's license." Florida Statutes set forth specific restrictions applicable to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages by the holder ("licensee") of a caterer's license. One such restriction is that service of alcohol at an event catered by the licensee is restricted to events where the licensee is also providing prepared food. On Friday, November 18, 2011, the Respondent sold and served alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises by customers attending an event at Club LAX, 7430 Universal Boulevard, in Orlando, Florida. The Respondent provided no prepared food to persons attending the event at Club LAX on November 18, 2011. There were no menus, plates or utensils present at the event. There were no dining tables or food service staff present at the event. On April 21, 2012, the Respondent sold and served alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises by customers attending an event at Club Magic, 5600 West Colonial Drive, in Orlando, Florida. The Respondent provided no prepared food to persons attending the event at Club Magic on April 21, 2012. There were no menus, plates or utensils present at the event. There were no dining tables or food service staff present at the event. The Respondent asserted that on the dates referenced above, food was made available to customers at the end of the catered events and that many customers took the food "to go" as they left the event. The assertion was contradicted by the personal observations of witnesses who testified at the hearing, was unsupported by credible evidence, and has been rejected. Florida law requires that a licensee maintain, for a period of three years, all records "required by the department by rule" to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for the caterer's license. One such requirement is that a caterer must derive "at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages." The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent failed to "maintain separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, and all purchases and gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages." Such records are required to determine whether the caterer is meeting the "51 percent" requirement. At the request of the Petitioner, the Respondent provided various documents covering three specific time periods. The materials were reviewed by an employee of the Petitioner, who testified at the hearing in detail as to his unsuccessful attempt to correlate the Respondent's documents to specific events allegedly catered by the Respondent. The documents submitted by the Respondent are insufficient to permit a determination as to whether or not the Petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements to maintain a caterer's license. The Respondent presented no credible evidence that the employee's review of the submitted documents was inaccurate or otherwise flawed. The Respondent asserted that the statute does not specifically state the time frame within which the "51 percent" requirement must be met. The documents submitted by the Respondent to the Petitioner lack sufficient reliability to establish that the statutory requirement was met at any point in time. The applicable statute also requires that a licensee's records include "licensed vendor receipts for the purchase of alcoholic beverages and records identifying each customer and the location and date of each catered event." Alcohol purchased by a licensee for a catered event, but not used at the event, must remain with the customer for whom the event was catered or must be returned, unopened, to the vendor for credit or reimbursement. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of an alcohol vendor with whom the Respondent had an account for the purchase of alcohol in 2012. The vendor reviewed records of the Respondent's purchases and testified that it was "impossible" to bill the Respondent for a single event because the Respondent did not return the unused products. The records for the Respondent's purchases of alcohol from the vendor cannot be credibly correlated to specific events allegedly catered by the Respondent. The quantities of alcohol purchased cannot be reliably attributed to consumption at any specific event. The vendor described the records as a "running invoice" because alcohol taken by the Respondent for use at one event and unused, was retained by the Respondent for use at subsequent events. There was no credible evidence offered to contradict the vendor's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 and revoking the Respondent's license no. BEV5810598, as set forth in the penalty guidelines. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The matters presented for consideration concern the two-count Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against the Respondent, Bland Corporation, which trades as Grace's Place. Count One (1) of that Complaint alleges that beginning May 15, 1977, through November 16, 1979, the Respondent failed to disclose the names and addresses of persons interested directly or indirectly with its business for which a beverage license had been issued and that in doing so, the Respondent acted contrary to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that one Grace Sherman had an undisclosed interest in the licensed premises. Count Two (2) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent, on or about May 15, 1977, failed to comply with the order of the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco dated April 15, 1977, in that Grace Sherman failed to divest her interest in the Respondent's beverage license and this was contrary to Section 561.11, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This action is here presented by way of a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against the Respondent, Bland Corporation, which trades as Grace's Place, 2502 North Albany Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The terms and details of the allegations may be found in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is a State agency charged with regulating those persons within the State of Florida who hold beverage licenses issued by the Petitioner. This responsibility includes the requirement that the Petitioner take administrative action against those licensees believed to have violated the terms and conditions of their 1icensurezzz. In pursuit of this responsibility, the allegations as set forth herein were brought against the Respondent, Bland Corporation, a Florida corporation, Beverage License Number 39-537, Series 4- COP. The Bland Corporation held the subject beverage license in the beverage license year, October 1, 1976, through September 30, 1977, using the trade name, Ace Lounge. In the course of that year, the trade name was changed to Grace's Place and the Respondent has continued to do business under the name Grace's Place up to and including the time of the administrative hearing in this cause. On April 15, 1977, the Corporation was solely owned by Darlene K. Cowans and was operating under the business name, Ace Lounge. At that time a stipulation and settlement was consummated between Ms. Cowans with the accompanying signature of the present counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Levine, and signed by the petitioner in the person of its Director. This stipulation and implementing order settled the pending administrative charges against the licensee. The first charge related to an allegation that the Respondent had a person, namely, Grace Bland Sherman, who was directly or indirectly involved in the Respondent's business and that Mrs. Sherman had an undisclosed interest in that business, contrary to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-2.14, Florida Administrative Code. There was a second Count in that complaint document which alleged that the Respondent had relinquished management and control of the licensed premises to the same Mrs. Sherman, in contravention of Rule 7A-3.17, Florida Administrative Code. The stipulation in its operative parts stated that the Respondent would pay a fifteen hundred dollar ($1,500.00) civil penalty within fifteen (15) days of the date of the stipulation or, upon failure to do so, an automatic suspension of fifteen (15) days would take effect. There was additional language in the stipulation for penalty which stated: "Licensee further agrees to the divesture[sic] of interest in this license of Grace Bland Sherman within thirty (30) days of receipt of this stipulation approved by the Director." (A copy of this Stipulation and the Statement of Charges may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence.) In examining the latter provision within the Stipulation, the details of what the parties intended in effectuating the purposes of the divestiture of interest which Grace Bland Sherman might have in the license was not spoken to by the Petitioner in the present hearing and the complaint allegations do not fill this void. (Grace Sherman is an individual who has been required to serve a probationary term in connection with a court disposition in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, which probation was concluded in February, 1980. The particular violation for which this probationary term was given to Grace Sherman was not shown in the course of the hearing.) Grace Bland Sherman gave testimony and that testimony establishes that Mrs. Sherman was acting as a bookkeeper for the Respondent on April 15, 1977, and continued to serve in that capacity at the time of the hearing. Her duties included and now include daily bookkeeping, daily preparation of receipts, coordination of the payment of payroll taxes and sales taxes, and the preparation of bank deposits for the business. Following the April 15, 1977, stipulation, Darlene K. Cowans, who was the sister of Grace Sherman, sold her 100 percent controlling interest in the Bland Corporation to Marlon Lewis, the son of Grace Sherman. Marlon Lewis paid Darlene K. Cowans five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) cash with a balance of seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000.00) due and owing to be paid from profits of the licensed premises in exchange for the control of the assets of the Corporation. A copy of the stock assignment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The stock assignment took place on June 14, 1977, and the Petitioner allowed Marlon A. Lewis to be substituted as the President, Secretary, Treasurer and owner of the Bland Corporation for purposes of the Corporation holding the subject beverage license. A copy of the application for change of name, officers and ownership, together with Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership and license investigation papers may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. The substitution of officers and ownership took place in 1977 and at the time of the hearing Marlon Lewis remained as the President, Director and owner of the Corporation, with Marjorie Lewis serving as Vice President and Treasurer, and Vedus McCray serving as the Secretary. The business is managed by Sallie M. Hubert. (Marlon Lewis has other employment and is not involved with the matters of routine management of the licensed premises.) The principal operating bank account of the Corporation is conducted through the Southeast Bank of Tampa, in Tampa, Florida. Those persons listed above as officers and manager of the Corporation are empowered to write checks on the corporate account of the Respondent, together with Grace Sherman, the bookkeeper. A copy of the authorization for signatures may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 36 admitted into evidence is a copy of other signature cards related to the operating account and the right to withdraw funds from corporate savings accounts. Grace Sherman receives a salary from the Respondent and the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 7 contains a number of salary checks issued on the above referenced Southeast Bank of Tampa account, for the period November 27, 1977, through September 26, 1979. Some of these checks here issued by Grace Sherman and some were issued by other individuals within the corporate organization. There are several other checks in this series of exhibits. One of those checks is a ten dollar ($10.00) check written to the Secretary of the State of Florida for the purpose of paying a filing fee for the 1978 Annual Report for Cowans Realty. The remaining two checks in this series relate to checks issued by Grace Sherman for the payment to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, one of those checks indicating that it is for "Bucks tickets". Each of the two remaining checks is in the amount of three hundred twenty dollars ($320.00). No further explanation of the reason for expenditures related to the several checks was made during the course of the hearing. The Bland Corporation pays for life insurance and medical insurance for the benefit of Marlon A. Lewis on policies issued by Bankers Life Company. These moneys for payment are deducted from the operating account of the Petitioner in the Southeast Bank of Tampa. A copy of the payment drafts and other matters related to the policies may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 8. Grace Sherman is the beneficiary of the life insurance policy. The Respondent pays for a life insurance, disability and double indemnity policy for the benefit of Grace Sherman. This policy is with the Wabash Life Insurance Company and deductions are made from the aforementioned operating account to effectuate payment for the premiums. The beneficiary for the life insurance aspect of this policy is Marlon Lewis. A copy of the policy and premium payment drafts may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence. In addition, the Corporation through the same operating bank account, pays for a medical policy for the benefit of Grace B. Sherman, including major medical of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). A copy of the policy and bank drafts for payment may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. This policy is as issued by American States Insurance Company. In the years 1977, 1978 and 1979, the Respondent employed the Bookkeepers Business Service Company to keep its books in the way of profit and loss statements. The arrangement for these services was made by Marlon Lewis and the routine coordination for these services was through Grace Sherman, the bookkeeper of the Corporation. The services continued until such time as the Bookkeepers Business Service Company unilaterally discontinued the service due to a management decision unrelated to any disagreement with the Respondent. The profit and loss statements for the month of October, 1978, entered by the bookkeeping service and found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11, do not reflect a two hundred dollar ($200.00) cash withdrawal from the Corporation's operating account in the Southeast Bank of Tampa. This check is written by Grace Sherman and indicates that the purposes were "quarters for weekend". On November 28, 1977, Marlon Lewis, representing Bland Corporation on that date referred to as Bland, Inc., and Grace Sherman were granted a bank loan by Southeast Bank of Tampa for purposes of consolidating the personal debts of Marlon Lewis and Grace Sherman. This loan was issued to the Respondent, Bland Corporation, and seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) of Marlon Lewis's personal debts and fourteen thousand eight hundred dollars ($14,800.00) of personal debts of Grace Sherman were retired. The amount of loan to the borrower, Bland Corporation, referred to as Bland, Inc., was twenty-one thousand eight hundred dollars ($21,800.00). The arrangement for the new loan obligated the Respondent Corporation to allow draws from its operating business account at the Southeast Bank of Tampa, in the amount of four hundred sixty-three dollars and nineteen cents ($463.19) for a period of sixty (60) months and in fact those drawals have been made. The details of this financing and examples of debit charges to the operating account of the Respondent Corporation and the lending institution may he found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 17 admitted into evidence. On May 12, 1978, Bland Corporation in the person of Marlon A. Lewis with Grace Sherman as guarantors borrowed twenty-four thousand four hundred ninety-four dollars and sixteen cents ($24,494.16) for the purpose of purchasing a 1978 Mercedes Benz automobile. By this arrangement, the bank required security through the assignment of certain savings accounts which were the property of Grace Sherman. The automobile had been selected by Grace Sherman and a 1976 Cadillac automobile, which was her property, had been used in trade. At present, the automobile is primarily used by Grace Sherman. It is also used by the Respondent Corporation's manager and by the owner, Marlon Lewis. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 30 and 31 admitted into evidence are papers dealing with the purchase of the automobile from Precision Motor Cars of Tampa, Florida, and the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 18 admitted into evidence is a copy of the promissory note and assignment of savings deposits and other matters related to the loan. The insurance on the Mercedes Benz automobile was initially written by Eastern Underwriters listing Grace Sherman as the insured as opposed to Bland Corporation, the true owner of the automobile; however, this problem occurred due to certain confusion in the office of Eastern Underwriters and was not due to any improper motives on the part of the members of Bland Corporation or Grace Sherman. The exhibits dealing with this insurance coverage may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 32 through 35 admitted into evidence and Respondent's Exhibits 2 through 4 admitted into evidence. On August 14, 1979, Sallie M. Hubert, the manager for the Respondent/Licensee, paid a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) membership fee in a private club, the Copper Door, and this membership was issued in the name of Grace Sherman. The check in payment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25 admitted into evidence, and the membership card may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24 admitted into evidence. Grace Sherman had prior to the time of the payment of the membership fees in the Copper Door paid for an individual membership in a private club known as the Cypress Club, and the amount of that payment was fifty dollars ($50.00). The check in payment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 26 admitted into evidence. Both of the private club memberships mentioned above were drawn on the corporate account of the Bland Corporation referred to before and the purpose of those memberships was for the entertainment of Grace Sherman and Marlon Lewis. Grace Sherman, at the insistence of Marlon Lewis, made arrangements to have Mrs. Sherman's mother's house fumigated and the payment on the installment contract which financed the fumigation service was made on the corporate account of the Bland Corporation and was subsequently reimbursed by Marlon Lewis. Exhibits dealing with this arrangement for service may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 27 and 28 admitted into evidence. In the application form which is petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, in responding to the question related to the disclosure of the names of any of the persons directly or indirectly interested in his business, Marlon Lewis indicated "N/A". Therefore, Grace Sherman was not shown to have any direct or indirect interest in the license which was held naming Marlon Lewis as the primary officer and the owner of the Bland Corporation. Likewise, Grace Sherman was never required by the present ownership of the Respondent Corporation or by any requirement of the agency proven herein, to register her fingerprints with the District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in connection with her association with the current principal in the license, Marlon Lewis.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts in this matter and in view of the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against the licensee be DISMISSED. 4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1980.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not authorized by law and/or maintaining a place where alcoholic beverages were sold unlawfully; (2) Whether Respondent violated Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with the terms set forth in a prior Final Order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and (3) If so, what sanctions should be imposed against Respondent's alcoholic beverage licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, holds a bottle club license number 46- 03606, issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department/Division) and has held such license since June 1995. Under this license, Respondent operates a bottle club known as Hollywood Underground (the licensed premises/the premises or Hollywood Underground) located at 16440 South Tamiami Trail, Unit 1, Fort Myers, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Mattheos Milonas was the director, president, secretary, and treasurer of Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, and the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. On or about February 12, 1999, Peggy Duffala, a special agent with the Department, organized an undercover on-site investigation of Hollywood Underground, based on a complaint that Respondent was in violation of certain laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages without a proper license. On February 12, 1999, Agent Duffala, and two other special agents of the Department, Agent David Perez and Agent Patrick McEnroe, went to the licensed premises to further the investigation. When Agent Duffala arrived, she conducted surveillance in the parking lot of the licensed premises for approximately one and a half hours. During that time, Agent Duffala observed patrons entering and exiting the premises, but saw no patrons entering the premises carrying alcoholic beverages or containers of any kind in their hands. On February 12, 1999, at or near 2:30 a.m., acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Perez and Agent McEnroe entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, Agent Perez paid a $5.00 cover charge and received a wristband. Perez brought no alcohol into the premises with him on that evening. Once inside the licensed premises, Agent Perez went to the bar where he was approached by bartender Norman Vanderbiest. After Vanderbiest asked him what he would like, Agent Perez ordered a Budweiser beer. Vanderbiest retrieved the beer from the cooler behind the bar and gave Agent Perez the beer. After Perez asked how much the Budweiser cost, Vanderbiest responded, "$3.00." Agent Perez then gave $3.00 to Vanderbiest, who subsequently rang up the sale and placed the money in the cash register. At no time during the transaction described in paragraph 6 did Vanderbiest ask Agent Perez if he had brought any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. In fact, Agent Perez had not brought any alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises on August 12, 1999. Furthermore, prior to February 12, 1999, Agent Perez had never visited the licensed premises, and thus, had never taken any alcoholic beverages there. After Agent Perez purchased the Budweiser beer, he moved from the main bar area to the west end of the bar where he remained for about ten minutes. While situated at the west end of the bar, Agent Perez observed several patrons approach the bar and speak with Vanderbiest. Agent Perez was unable to hear what was being said but he observed Vanderbiest serve each patron an alcoholic beverage. After receiving the alcoholic beverages, each patron would then give Vanderbiest money. At no time during these transactions did Agent Perez observe patrons present cards to Vanderbiest to punch. Furthermore, Agent Perez did not see Vanderbiest check a logbook before he served alcoholic beverages to those patrons. From the west end of the bar, Agent Perez saw 10 to 15 patrons entering the licensed premises. During that time, Agent Perez observed that none of the patrons entering the premises brought alcoholic beverages with them. Agent Patrick McEnroe entered the premises on February 12, 1999, at about 2:30 a.m. Upon entering the premises, Agent McEnroe paid a $5.00 cover charge. Agent McEnroe brought no alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises with him nor did he receive a ticket or card to be punched. Once inside the premises, Agent McEnroe went to the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer from bartender, Norman Vanderbiest. Vanderbiest informed Agent McEnroe that the cost was $3.00, then retrieved a Bud Light beer from the cooler and handed it to Agent McEnroe. Agent McEnroe gave the bartender $3.00 for the beer. Agent McEnroe purchased three bottles of beer that evening. In none of these transactions did Vanderbiest ask Agent McEnroe if he brought any beer with him nor did he ask Agent McEnroe for a card to be punched. Later that evening, after Agents Perez and McEnroe exited the premises, Division agents, assisted by the Lee County Sheriff's Office, entered and raided the premises. During the raid, agents seized 571 containers of alcoholic beverages, $315.00 in cash from the cash register, and two notebooks. One of the notebooks seized was a log book containing entries listing alleged patrons' names along with an alcoholic beverage type, a number assigned to the beverage, and a date. The last entry in the log book was made on February 6, 1999, six days prior to the raid. Neither Agent Perez nor Agent McEnroe was listed in the logbooks. During the raid, Division agents entered the premises and arrested the manager of the club. Subsequently, the manager pled guilty in the Lee County Circuit Court to the criminal charge of keeping or maintaining a place, the licensed premises, that sold alcoholic beverages without a proper license on February 12, 1999. The licensed premises had procedures that governed how employees of Hollywood Underground were to accept and distribute beer and liquor brought into the premises by patrons. When a patron brought beer into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to write on a card the number and kind of beer that the patron brought to the premises. Once this information was recorded on the card, the employee would give the card to the patron. After the club employee accepted the beer from and issued the card to the patron, in order for the patron to retrieve one or more of the beers, the patron was to present the card to the bartender. The bartender was to then give the patron the requested number of beers and punch the card the corresponding number of times, thereby indicating to both the bartender and patron the number of beers the patron had been given and how many remained. To facilitate ease in the dispensing of the beer, like brands of beer were commingled and placed in a cooler with other containers of identical brands. No attempt was made to designate or label containers of beer by the patrons who brought them into the premises. With regard to liquor, the policy of Hollywood Underground was that bottles of liquor brought in by patrons were to be identified in a manner to ensure that patrons were served liquor only from the bottles that they brought to the premises. In accordance with this policy, when a patron brought a bottle of liquor into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to put a label on each bottle and write a number on the label. Next, in a log book, the employee was to write the number designated on the club's label, the kind of liquor, and the name of the patron who brought in that bottle of liquor. On February 12, 1999, these policies were not implemented by employees of the licensed premises as evidenced by the transactions involving Agents Perez and McEnroe. In the fall of 1998, Tom Lloyd, a videographer for Channel 6 television, followed Division agents into the licensed premises for purposes of an undercover television news story regarding illegal sale of alcoholic beverages by Respondent. Lloyd did not bring any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. Nevertheless, while sitting at the bar, Lloyd was approached by a bartender who solicited an order from Lloyd for an alcoholic beverage. Lloyd requested a rum and coke and was sold a rum and coke for $4.00 by the bartender. Prior to the Administrative Action which is the subject of this proceeding, three other administrative actions have been filed against Hollywood Underground for violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. All of the three previously filed administrative actions resulted in disciplinary action against Respondent's license. Respondent was charged in two separate administrative actions (DBPR Case Nos. 46-95-0582 and 46-95-0089) with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, in violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. These two cases were resolved by combined Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-96-02540), wherein Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty and agreed that its "agents, servants, or employees would not sell or supply alcoholic beverages to any person other than the patron who brought such alcoholic beverages onto the premises." Respondent also agreed to diligently "ensure that no alcoholic beverage would be dispensed to any person that did not bring such alcoholic beverage onto the premises." In DBPR Case No. 46-97-0890, Respondent was charged for the third time with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. This case was resolved by Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-98-06888), wherein Respondent paid a $7,500 civil penalty and agreed to take corrective action regarding the unlawful sale of alcohol on the premises. Respondent agreed to prevent further occurrences of violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 6 of the Consent Order, Respondent agreed and acknowledged that revocation of its alcoholic beverage license would be the appropriate sanction for any subsequent administrative action against the Respondent's license alleging failure of the Respondent to comply with the beverage laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action; that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-01181 be revoked; and that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 per count for a total of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Julius F. Parker, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkerson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a special restaurant license (4COP-SRX) can be deemed incomplete for failure to obtain zoning approval from the local government.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a restaurant duly-licensed by the State of Florida to serve food and certain alcoholic beverages. It currently holds a 2COP restaurant license, which allows it to sell beer and wine along with its food products. Petitioner has held the 2COP license since opening in calendar year 2002. Petitioner derives 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. It is in an area of Orange County which is zoned for commercial property and has the appropriate land use code for a restaurant chain. Petitioner's facility is presently located within 500 feet of a local school. The school was built a year or two after Petitioner began operation of its restaurant. In order for Petitioner to obtain an upgraded license so that it can serve other alcoholic beverages (i.e., liquor) it must submit an application to Respondent. Petitioner duly- submitted such an application on February 5, 2007. The application sought to upgrade Petitioner's license to a 4COP-SRX license. The 4COP license would allow for sale of all alcoholic beverages. Section 5 of the Application addresses zoning for the restaurant. Section 5 includes the following: Are there outside areas which are contiguous to the premises which are to be part of the premises sought to be licensed? [Petitioner answered, Yes.] If this application is for issuance of an alcoholic beverage license where zoning approval is required, the zoning authority must complete "A" and "B". If zoning is not required, the applicant must complete section "B". The location complies with zoning requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages or wholesale tobacco products pursuant to this application for a Series 4COP SRX license. Signed Title Date Is the location within limits of an "Incorporated City or Town"? Yes No If yes, enter the name of the city or town: Petitioner filled in the address portion of Section 5, but did not have a zoning authority complete Section A, nor did Petitioner complete Section B. Respondent deemed the Application incomplete due to Petitioner's failure to complete Section 5. On July 25, 2007, a Final Warning Notice was sent to Petitioner, allowing Petitioner ten additional days to submit zoning approval for the Application. When no zoning approval was returned within the prescribed period, Respondent issued its Intent to Deny License. Petitioner did make an inquiry to the local zoning authority concerning its application to increase the level of its license. However, by letter dated February 22, 2007, the Orange County Zoning Division notified Petitioner as follows: We have received your request for an increase in series to the alcoholic beverage license at Hooters Lake Underhill, 11425 Underhill Road, Orlando. On February 22, 2007 we conducted a distance check to see if the proposed location satisfied the separation requirements contained in the Orange County Code. The results of our inspection reveal that the proposed location is 407 ft. from Legacy Middle School at 11398 Lake Underhill Road. Since this location cannot satisfy the 1000 ft. separation requirement from the nearest school, this office cannot issue zoning approval for the increase in series.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, denying the application filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008.
