The Issue Whether petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be denied because of the direct or indirect interest of John Lee Johnson, a person allegedly lacking good moral character.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1982, petitioner Betty Jean Johnson applied for a 2 APS (beer and wine) alcoholic beverage license to be used in connection with a business known as Johnson's Corner Grocery, 1400 North J. Street, Pensacola, Florida. On her application, petitioner indicated that she owned the business and that no other person had a direct or indirect interest in the business. (R-1) Prior to the petitioner filing her application, John Lee Johnson, her husband, had applied for a beverage license for the same location under his own name. When he failed to disclose his criminal history on the application, his application was denied and he was charged with the crime of filing a false official written statement. On May 12, 1982, he was convicted by the County Court of Escambia County. (Testimony of Baxley; R-3) John Johnson's filing of a false official statement supports an inference that he lacks good moral character. Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to rebut or negate this inference. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, John Johnson has a direct or indirect interest in Johnson's Corner Grocery. He owns the underlying real property. He signs, and is authorized to sign, checks on the business account of Johnson's Corner Grocery. The business's utilities, light, water, and gas accounts are all in his name. (Testimony of Baxley, Johnson, Kelly; R-4) Petitioner, however, manage's the day-to-day operations of Johnson's Corner Grocery. On her application, she indicated that she had purchased the business for $80,000, with $25,000 down, and $55,000 financed by the Barnett Bank. She now admits that the $25,000 down payment was provided by John Johnson, her husband, and that he also co-signed the $55,000 note and mortgage. Her application, however, does not disclose Mr. Johnson's participation in the purchase and financing of, the business. (Testimony of Johnson; R-1, R-4) On November 9, 1982, three days before hearing, Mr. Johnson leased the Johnson's Corner Grocery property to petitioner for $675.00 per month for three years. The handwritten lease, which was not signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, states that Mr. Johnson will not be "responsible for . . . the operations of . . . [the] business." This assertion is rejected as unworthy of belief in light of his extensive involvement in purchasing and setting up the business, and his continuing access to its funds. (P-1)
The Issue Whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed, for an alleged violation of s. 562.12, Florida Statutes, pursuant to s. 561.29(1)(b), F.S., as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by Petitioner on March 28, 1977. The hearing in this case was scheduled for 9:00 A.M. on December 8, 1977 at Petitioner's business address in Tallahassee, Florida. Notice of Hearing was sent to the Respondent on November 21, 1977 by mail. The notice of hearing was not returned by the Post Office as being undelivered. Neither the Respondent nor any representative in her behalf appeared at the hearing. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer advised counsel for the Petitioner that the matter would be conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Margaret P. Muse operates Club 40 located at Midway, Florida, and is authorized to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises incident to a Class 2-COP license issued by the Petitioner. On August 15, 1976 at approximately 12:05 P.M., Gary Sams, a beverage officer with the Tallahassee field office of the Petitioner, accompanied by a reliable informant, went to the vicinity of Respondent's licensed premises. There, Sams searched the informant and found that he possessed no alcoholic beverages or currency. Sams gave the informant $5.00 and told him to go to the residence immediately east of the licensed premises. The informant entered the house, remained approximately 5 minutes and returned to Sams with a one-half pint unsealed bottle of Calverts Extra whiskey and a twelve-ounce sealed can of Schlitz beer in his possession. The informant told Sams that he had purchased the liquor from one Lou Ethel Palmer for $2.75 and that she had obtained it from a room in the house. Sams and the informant initialed the containers and Sams took them to the evidence room of his agency where they remained until the date of the hearing (testimony of Sams, Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 22, 1976 at approximately 10:30 P.M., Sams returned to the premises with the same informant, and followed the same procedures as to a prior search of his person and directions to enter the residence again. Sams observed the informant do so where he remained for a period of time and then returned to Sams outside and turned over a one-half pint unsealed bottle of Calverts Extra whiskey. The informant stated that while in the residence, he had ordered the whiskey from Palmer, but that another female in the house had gone outside to obtain the whiskey. When she returned with it, the informant paid her $2.75 for the same. By the informant's description of the female who had sold the whiskey to him, Sams determined that she was the Respondent Margaret P. Muse. The two men initialed the container and Sams placed it in the evidence room of his agency where it remained until the date of this hearing (testimony of Sams, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On August 23, 1976, warrants authorizing search of the Palmer residence were obtained by Petitioner. On August 29, Sams and deputy sheriffs of Gadsden County proceeded to the residence in question where they were admitted by Muse. Arrest warrants were served on Muse and Palmer and the premises were searched. In the bedroom several half pints of vodka and whiskey were found and seized. Two cases of 12-ounce cans of Schlitz beer were found in an outbuilding adjacent to the house and also seized. Muse stated at the time that the beer was being stored in the outbuilding for the purposes of sale at the licensed premises (testimony of Sams).
Recommendation That the charge against Respondent, Margaret P. Muse, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida Mrs. Margaret P. Muse P.O. Box 116 Midway, Florida 32343 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1 One half-pint bottle labeled "Calvert Extra" (half full of liquid) One sealed can (12 ounce) Schlitz beer PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 2 One full unsealed half-pint bottle labeled "Calvert Extra"
Findings Of Fact Victor Ingargiola is the sole shareholder, director and officer of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East (Petitioner), a Florida corporation. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Respondent. Both Mr. Victor Ingargiola and his wife, Mrs. Barbara Ingargiola, entered the Division's double random selection drawing for eligibility to apply for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Ingargiola was selected in the drawing, and Mrs. Ingargiola was not. After receiving notice of his selection in the drawing, Mr. Ingargiola formed the Petitioner and applied for licensure on or about November 1, 1984. In his application, Mr. Ingargiola did not identify his wife as a person having an interest in Petitioner or its business, either directly or indirectly. The application also represented that Petitioner had a right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed at 4513 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's application carries with it an application fee of $6,750. Mr. Ingargiola obtained a portion of the funds necessary to pay the application fee from funds held jointly by him and his wife and by loans to him and his wife secured by property jointly held by him and his wife. Virtually all money and property of the Ingargiolas is held in their joint names. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ingargiola conferred with the Division's Investigator Miller concerning the application. Miller initially requested that Mrs. Ingargiola be finger printed as a person having an interest in the license to be issued. Mrs. Ingargiola understood that she was not permitted to have an interest since she herself had entered the double random selection drawing. She therefore declined to be fingerprinted or to be made to appear on the application as a party having an interest in the license to be issued. Investigator Miller also discussed with the Ingargiolas the question of Mrs. Ingargiola's involvement and the financing of Petitioner. Investigator Miller led the Ingargiolas to believe that the only possible legal financing arrangement would be for Mrs. Ingargiola to give the funds to her husband outright. He led them to believe that this could be done by affidavit, and Mrs. Ingargiola signed and filed an affidavit which Investigator Miller approved as to form. The affidavit listed the financing in question and stated: "I swear that the following funds obtained are to be used by Victor A. Ingargiola and I will have no interest or control over these funds." Barbara Ingargiola also testified at final hearing that she claims no interest whatsoever in Petitioner, any license to be issued to it, or the funds she gave outright to her husband to finance Petitioner. Essentially, Mrs. Ingargiola gave her half of the joint funds and proceeds of joint loans used by Victor Ingargiola to finance Petitioner's application fee. If necessary, she was prepared to do the same with the proceeds from the sale of joint real property or loans secured by the Ingargiolas' joint real property. However, no mention was made or consideration given to Mrs. Ingargiola's liability for her husband's share of the joint borrowing in addition to hers. Mrs. Ingargiola did have an interest in the successful operation of Petitioner so as to enable her husband to pay at least half, if not all, of the joint borrowing used in part to finance Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1984, Mr. Ingargiola obtained a written lease to the premises to be licensed. However, the lease does not contain a commencement date. At the time the application was filed, the premises were occupied by another tenant, and, as of December 20, 1984, this tenant had a legal right to occupy the premises and had not been notified of the pending liquor license application or the lease. In addition, the purported lease contains a provision requiring Petitioner to secure its duties and obligations under the lease by depositing with the landlord the sum of $60,000 in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. There was no evidence that Petitioner had complied with or could comply with this requirement of the lease. Although Mr. Ingargiola testified to his understanding of his right to occupancy of the premises under the lease upon granting of Petitioner's application and issuance of the license, there was no testimony from the landlord on the ambiguities surrounding the lease and the rights of the tenant in possession. As a result, the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove Petitioner's right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East, for a quota alcoholic beverage license RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner holds a 1-COP beverage license which authorizes the sale of beer only for consumption on the licensed premises. Personal service of the Notice to Show Cause was made on an employee operating the premises on August 23, 1976. Service of the Notice of Hearing was placed in the door of Country Inn while the Inn was not open for business. The employee of the licensee who received service of the Notice to Show Cause appeared at the hearing. On July 9, 1976 two beverage agents visited the Country Inn around 10:00 P.M. Upon checking around the premises they found: One partial quart of Smirnoff vodka 80 proof; 1 partial one fifth gallon of Smirnoff vodka 80 proof; 1 one fifth gallon of Barcardi light rum; 1 almost full one fifth gallon Pinch scotch whiskey; and 1 partial one fifth gallon of Mogan David blackberry wine. These alcoholic beverages were seized, labeled and produced at the hearing. A description of these beverages as noted above was substituted for the beverages which was admitted as Exhibit 2. The beverages described above had been brought onto the premises by Robert Jordan Jr. for his personal consumption.
Findings Of Fact Eugene Willner is the corporate officer and sole stockholder of G.W. Liquors of Broward, Inc., d/b/a Case Deliveries, and G.W. Liquors of Collier, Inc., d/b/a Discounted by the Case. On August 27, 1980, Eugene Willner entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to a violation of Title 21, United States Code s. 963, Conspiracy to Import Marijuana. Based upon his plea he was convicted and sentenced to two years of imprisonment, and a fine of $5000 was imposed. Willner had never before been convicted of any offense, nor has he been convicted of any offense subsequent to the 1980 conviction. Other than the 1980 conviction, Willner has a reputation of good moral character in his community. On July 8, 1983 Willner received a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights which provided, in relevant part, that he ... is restored to all civil rights in this State, except the specific authority to possess or own a firearm, lost by reason of any and all felonies this person may have been convicted of in another state, federal, or military court . In early 1987, the Petitioner corporate entities controlled by Willner applied for new quota alcoholic beverage licenses. Those applications disclosed Willner's 1980 conviction and his 1983 restoration of civil rights. On October 28, 1987, Respondent denied the applications. Of the 8500 licensed alcoholic beverage premises in Dade and Monroe Counties, only approximately 20 to 25 (or approximately one-quarter of one percent) are experiencing a problem with narcotics.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioners' applications for alcoholic beverage licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-5565 & 87-5566 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's unnumbered proposed finding of fact has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein for the reasons set forth in this Recommended Order. Additionally, that proposed finding of fact contains phrases which are not supported by the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting background information forming the basis for Respondent's proposed agency action in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 6, respectively, have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel and recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: C. I. Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Bruce Rogow, Esquire 2097 S.W. 27th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 S.W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of selling alcoholic beverages not permitted by Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 46-02076, series 14-BC. This license authorizes Respondent to operate as a bottle club, under Sections 561.01(15) and 561.14(6). Respondent's licensed premises is located at 8595 College Parkway, Number B12, Ft. Myers. On October 29, 1996, at about 2:00 am, two of Petitioner's agents entered the licensed premises after paying a $2 cover charge. Neither agent had any alcoholic beverages in his possession. However, two of Respondent's employees assured them that they did not need to bring alcoholic beverages. One of these employees was the manager and the other was the barmaid. One agent ordered a Budweiser beer (Bud) and a shot of Jim Beam whiskey. The other agent ordered a Bud. The first agent later ordered another Jim Beam, but was told they were out of Jim Beam. The agent then ordered an Early Times whiskey. Respondent's barmaid took these orders and filled them with stock kept apart from other patrons. This person collected $3 for each of the drinks. On November 3, 1995, at about 2:00 am, the same agents returned to the licensed premises, again without any alcoholic beverages in their possession. They entered the premises after paying a $2 cover charge. Again, the agents placed orders with the barmaid employed by Respondent to work behind the bar. In response to a question from one of the agents as to what kinds of beers they had for sale, the barmaid recited several brand names. Each agent ordered an Ice House beer and paid $3. One of the agents next ordered an Early Times whiskey. The other agent ordered a Jim Beam whiskey. The barmaid informed the agent ordering the Jim Beam that they did not have any and suggested three other brands of whiskey. The agent ordered the Canadian Club. The employee served the drinks to each agent, who paid $3 for each drink. On November 9, 1995, at 3:15 am, the agents returned to the licensed premises. They paid a $1 cover charge and entered the premises without an alcoholic beverage in their possession. One agent ordered an Ice House beer and the other ordered a Jack Daniels. The barmaid was not there, but the employee who had formerly served as the manager worked as a bartender during this visit. The bartender served the agent an Ice House beer, for which he paid $3. The bartender told the other agent that they did not have any Jack Daniels, so the agent ordered a Canadian Club whiskey. The employee served the agent a drink of Canadian Club, for which he paid $3. Each of the above-described drinks ordered and consumed by the agents and served by the two employees of Respondent were alcoholic beverages. During the six hours that the agents were in the licensed premises, they saw only two persons enter the premises with an alcoholic beverage, but saw many patrons served with alcoholic beverages. The license fee for a bottle club is $500. The license fee for an alcoholic beverage license is $1820.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 561.12 and imposing an administrative fine of $1320. ENTERED on October 9, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 9, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nicholas Lukacovic 2902 Southwest 30th Street Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Nicholas Lukacovic Diamond Investigations 1314 Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 203 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Nicholas Lukacovic 1714 Southeast 47th Street Cape Coral, Florida 33904 John J. Harris, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs in defending the charges made against him in the case of Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 91-1618, under the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code (formerly 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code) and, if so, the amount which Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was licensed by the Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to sell alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco, having been issued license number 63-2090, 2APS. The Petitioner timely filed the petition in the instant case in accordance with Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code (now Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code). The Respondent timely filed a written response alleging that Respondent was substantially justified in issuing the Notice To Show. With its response the Respondent filed an Affidavit challenging the amount of attorney's fees and cost requested by the Petitioner. However, this Affidavit was subsequently withdrawn and the Respondent made no further effort to contest the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the Petitioner. Emad Abdelmeseh is domiciled in the state of Florida and is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business known as Emad's Texaco, located at 101 East Memorial Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. Emad's Texaco employs less than 25 employees, and the Petitioner's net worth is less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). Petitioner is a "small business party" as that term is defined under Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. On July 11, 1990, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), John Blair and Brad Nelson, participated in a joint investigation with the City of Lakeland Police Department (CLPD) in the illegal selling of alcoholic beverages to minors. Throughout the course of this investigation the Division's agents were on official duty. Agents Blair and Nelson met with the CLPD detectives and Smalley prior to the investigation and remained with the investigation until its conclusion, including the investigation of Emad's Texaco. The Division, through its agents Blair and Nelson, fully participated in the investigation conducted on July 11, 1990, including Emad's Texaco, and did not simply rely on the CLPD's independent investigation to institute action against Emad's Texaco. This case was not what the Division considers an "adopted case" - one handled entirely by another law enforcement agency which request the Division to prosecute. Therefore, the investigation, as far as agents Blair and Nelson were concerned, should have been conducted in accordance with the Division's Policy and Procedure. The investigation of July 11, 1990, involved the use of an underage operative by the name of J. Karen Smalley n/k/a J. Karen Raschke (Smalley) with previous experience working with the Division, and documented as an underage operative by the Division. Prior to July 11, 1990, Smalley had also been used as an underage operative by the CLPD. During the July 11, 1990 investigation, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Before leaving the Police Department to assist in the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was instructed by both Detective Phillips and Agent Blair, on separate occasions, concerning her duties and responsibilities in regard to the investigation. During the course of the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was sent on to the premises of Emad's Texaco for purposes of attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Smalley went to the cooler area in Emad's Texaco's licensed premises and took a six-pack of beer to the check-out counter. Amad Abdelmeseh asked to see Smalley's identification. Smalley either handed her driver's license to Amad Abdelmeseh or laid her driver's license on the check-out counter. Emad Abdelmeseh looked at Smalley's driver's licenses which showed her date of birth to be July 24, 1970, just a few days short of being 20 years of age. Although the photograph of Smalley on the driver's license was taken in 1986, she still maintained her youthful appearance on July 11, 1990. On July 11, 1990, Smalley's hair was blonde, having dyed her hair which was brown when the driver's license was issued. However, Smalley did not dress-up or wear make-up on July 11, 1990, so as to appear older than her age of almost 20 years. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that at the time Smalley was attempting to purchase the six-pack of beer on July 11, 1990, that she: (a) told Emad Abdelmeseh that she was 21 years of age or older or; (b) produced a driver's license, other than the driver's license referred to above, that listed a date of birth which would have indicated an age of 21 years or older or; (c) in any fashion attempted to misrepresent her age as being 21 years or older After looking at Smalley's driver's license, Emad Abdelmeseh sold Smalley the six-pack of beer. After making the purchase of beer, Smalley exited Emad's Texaco and advised Detective Phillips that she had made a purchase of beer from the person inside the store. Detective Phillips advised Detective Tim Snyder of the purchase. Detective Snyder then went inside Emad's Texaco and identified Emad Abdelmeseh as the person who had sold the beer to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Agent Blair served a Notice of Intent To File Administrative Charges against Emad Abdelmeseh's alcoholic beverage license as a result of his sale of alcoholic beverage to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Abdelmeseh complained to Agent Blair about the lapse of time between Smalley making the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990 and the serving of the Notice of Intent on August 8, 1990. Emad Abdelmeseh did not complain to Agent Blair on August 8, 1990 that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him when she made the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990. In fact, Emad Abdelmeseh did not advise Agent Blair, or anyone else with the Division, of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990, when she purchased the beer from him until after the Notice To Show Cause was issued by Lt. Robert Bishop. After the Notice of Intent was served on Emad Abdelmeseh, Agent Blair prepared a draft Notice To Show Cause and a synopsis for review by Lt. Robert Bishop, District Four Supervisor. Lt. Bishop has been a supervisor with the Division for 23 1/2 years. On August 16, 1990, Lt. Robert Bishop, acting with authority from the Division Director, issued a Notice To Show Cause which was served against the Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license on August 17, 1990 alleging that Petitioner had sold alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco to a person under the age of 21 years contrary to Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issuance of the Notice To Show Cause was the initiation of the case against the Petitioner and the Division was not a nominal party in this case. In issuing the Notice To Show Cause, Lt. Bishop relied solely on the information in the Notice To Show Cause and the synopsis prepared by Agent Blair without any further investigation or discussion with Agent Blair. The Division had used Smalley as an underage operative on several occasions prior to the investigation on July 11, 1990, and had found her to be a credible and reliable underage operative. Therefore, the Division reasonably relied on Smalley in the issuance to the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh, notwithstanding that on July 11, 1990, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Agent Blair has been an agent with the Division for 16 years and his reports, according to Lt. Bishop, are impeccable. Therefore, Lt. Bishop had no problem in issuing the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh based solely on Agents Blair's report, notwithstanding that Agent Blair's report did not specifically indicate that he had strictly adhered to the Division's Policy and Procedure. Although the record reflects that Agent Blair did not strictly adhere to the Division's Policy and Procedure on July 11, 1990, there is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the CLPD detectives basically filled in the gaps, so the speak. It is clear from the testimony of Lt. Bishop that even if had he made further inquiry of Agent Blair concerning Agent's Blair's adherence to policy and procedure, it would not have changed Lt. Bishop's mind about issuing the Notice To Show Cause because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact to issue the Notice To Show Cause - there was credible evidence that Emad Abdelmeseh had sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage operative in violation of the Florida Statutes. Along with the Notice To Show Cause served on Emad Abdelmeseh there was a Notice Of Informal Conference which provided for an Informal Conference between the Division and Emad Abdelmeseh on August 28, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. It was at this informal conference on August 28, 1990, that Emad Abdelmeseh first advised anyone from the Division of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990. The Informal Conference did not resolve the issues and a Request For Formal Hearing signed by Emad Abdelmeseh and dated September 4, 1990 was filed with the Division. In the Request For Hearing Emad Abdelmeseh sets out what he considers to be the disputed issues of fact. In this request there is an allegation that the underage operative was misleading in that when asked if she was 21 years of age she continued to purchase the beer as if she was an adult. There was no mention of Smalley presenting her driver's license By letter dated February 12, 1991, Emad Abdelmeseh again sets out what he considers to be the facts. Among other things, he alleges that Smalley claimed that she was over the age of 21 years and that she did present her driver's license for identification. On March 11, 1991, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing. The Division prosecuted this action in the case of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 91-1618. On October 30, 1991 the Division exercised its administrative discretion and entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing the charges against Emad Abdelmeseh set forth in the Notice To Show Cause issued on August 16, 1990. The reasons behind the Division's dismissal of the case were not presented at the hearing on April 29. 1992 or November 17, 1992. The Petitioner is the prevailing small business party as that term is defined in Section 57.111(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The hourly rate and the total number of hours expended by Petitioner's attorney, and others under his control, and the costs incurred in the defense of the Petitioner as set out in Amended Affidavit and attached as Exhibit B to the Petitioner's Amended Petition in the amount of $11,429.77 are reasonable, and should be the amount awarded in the event Petitioner is successful in presenting his Amended Petition. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that at the time the Notice To Show Cause was issued on August 16, 1990 the Division had made a meaningful inquiry into the matter and there was a reasonable basis in fact and law to initiate the action. No special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
