The Issue Whether or not on or about May 17, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did sell marijuana (cannibas) to an employee, agent or servant of the Clearwater Police Department, in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, to-wit: Subsection 893.13(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about May 17, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did possess marijuana (cannibas) in excess of five (5) grams with the intent to sell same, in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, to-wit: Subsection 893.13(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about June 6, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did unlawfully possess over five (5) grams of marijuana (cannibas), in violation of the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, to-wit: Subsection 893.13(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about June 6, 1979, Marvin Jones, licensed under the beverage laws, did unlawfully possess gambling paraphenalia, in violation of the gambling laws, to-wit: Subsections 849.09(1)(k) and (2), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Marvin and Flossie Jones, husband and wife, are the holders of license No. 62-383, Series 2-COP, as held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license entitles the Joneses to sell beer and wine for consumption on or off their licensed premises which is located at 1104 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, where the Respondents trade as Marvin's Beer and Nine. The Respondents are here charged by the Petitioner through a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint with' violations whose particulars are set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. In consideration of this dispute, a formal hearing was held on February 27, 1980. The facts reveal that on May 17, 1979, one Henry Irving entered the licensed premises and purchased 5.2 grams of marijuana (cannibas) by weight, from the Respondent, Marvin Jones. At that time Irving was acting as an operative for the Clearwater Police Department, Clearwater, Florida, and while in the licensed premises, Irving paid Marvin Jones $20.00 for this purchase of marijuana (cannibas). The money that was paid was money provided by the Clearwater Police Department. On June 6, 1979, acting under the authority of an arrest warrant, officers of the Clearwater Police Department arrested the Respondent, Marvin Jones, based on the sale of marijuana (cannibas) which he had made to Henry Irving. In making a search of Marvin Jones incidental to the arrest, two manila envelopes were found in Marvin Jones's sock and these envelopes contained marijuana (cannibas), the weight of that marijuana (cannibas) in the aggregate was 4.2 grams. The Respondent Jones was given his statement of rights in accordance with Miranda and after receiving those warnings, Jones stated that it was his practice to buy marijuana (cannibas) in amounts of a pound or two pounds and he in turn sold it in small amounts to adults. He further stated that he had purchased marijuana (cannibas) on mere than one occasion. In searching Marvin Jones, the officers also discovered $400.00 in cash and a number of slips of paper with numbers on them. Those slips of paper were explained by Jones to be numbers or combinations of numbers for dogs running at pari-mutuel races in Sarasota, Florida, and they were numbers which persons wished to have bet for them. Of the $400.00 found on the Respondent, Jones indicated that $50.00 of that money was for placing bets at the race track in particular for daily doubles races in the pari-mutuel events. He further stated that he would place the bets himself or have someone place them for him.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts herein and these matters in aggravation and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the license No. 62-383, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondents, Marvin and Flossie Jones, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Prior, Esquire CAMPBELL AND PRIOR, P.A. 205 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516
Findings Of Fact From October 1, 1975, up to and including April 14, 1976, the Respondent, Bobbie P. Miles, d/b/a D. J. `s Lounge, held State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License No. 26-91, Series 2-COP, for operation at a premises of 6644 Arlington Road, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of this license is found in Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Sometime in the beginning of April, 1976, Detective Claude Locke with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, received information from an informant that a minor female was selling alcoholic beverages in D. J.`s Lounge. This minor female was identified as being 5 foot 7 inches tall with reddish blonde hair. Locke went to D. J.`s Lounge and was served a beer by a woman fitting that description. No other employee in the bar was serving alcoholic beverages while he was there for 45 minutes. Subsequent to his investigation of the bar, Officer Locke contacted the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, about his activities. Officers B. W. Rowe and K. A. Boyd of the Division of Beverage acting on Officer Locke's report went to D. J.`s Lounge on April 14, 1976. The officers took a seat at the bar and a white female who was playing the pinball machine went to the bar and served them alcoholic beverages by serving the beverage and taking the money and returning the change from the purchase. This person who served them had reddish blond hair and was later identified in the course of the hearing as being one Darlene Usury. After Darlene Usury served the beer to the officers she went behind the bar and poured herself a beer and began to drink that beer. Her glass of alcoholic beverage was checked by the officers on the basis of their expertise and found to be an alcoholic beverage, and is offered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3, admitted. The alcoholic beverage served them was also tasted, based upon their expertise and found to be an alcoholic beverage. There was another woman working at the bar on April 14, 1976. This woman was Donna Moody. Ms. Moody indicated that Usury was not employed in the bar and that she had never checked her identification because the owner of the bar, Bobbie P. Miles, had allowed Darlene Usury to drink on other occasions. Later in the evening of April 14, 1976, the owner and Respondent, Bobbie P. Miles, came to the bar and indicated that he had met Darlene Usury at another establishment which he was operating and had been shown an identification. This identification was a Pennsylvania license issued to Debra Yanni, and this identification showed Darlene R. Usury to be more than 18 years of age on April 14, 1976. The identification card is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The identification card does not have a photograph. The identification card was initially shown to Bobbie P. Miles at the Jubille Bar a year or more before April 14, 1976. Darlene R. Usury was in fact 17 years old on April 14, 1976, at the time she served the alcoholic beverages to the beverage officers and consumed an alcoholic beverage. Darlene Usury explained that her action of serving the beer to the beverage officers was an isolated incident and she only did it to help out Donna Moody, the person in charge of the bar on that night. Bobbie P. Miles said that Darlene R. Usury was not employed on that night or on any other night. Although Darlene R. Usury had served the alcoholic beverages to Officers Rowe and Boyd, Donna Moody was also working behind the bar at that time. Officer Locke was unable to identify Darlene R. Usury as the woman who had served him alcoholic beverages on the prior occasion in April, 1976.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the licensee, Bobbie P. Miles, be fined in the amount of $150.00 for the violation as established by the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bobbie P. Miles pro se 6644 Arlington Road Jacksonville, Florida
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristides, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and 23- 8295, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. In March 1988, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), in conjunction with the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD), began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. Previously, Sergeant Tom Hunker and Detective Walter Campbell of the MBPD had made several drug arrests at the licensed premises, and had warned the owners to stop such activities on their premises or their licenses would be subject to revocation. On March 8, 1988, DABT Investigator Oscar Santana, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, he observed a male patron known as Junior sell what appeared to be rock cocaine to several persons both on and off the licensed premises. After observing the foregoing transactions, Investigator Santana approached Junior and asked him if he had any more to sell. In response, Junior handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks, for which Santana paid Junior $20. This transaction occurred in plan view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. 1/ On March 9, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering, Santana was approached by Junior who inquired as to whether he would be interested in purchasing some more cocaine. Santana responded affirmatively, and handed Junior $20. Junior then left the premises for a short time, and when he returned handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks. This transaction occurred at the counter, and in plain view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. After the foregoing transaction, Investigator Santana was approached by another patron known as Paul, who inquired whether he would be interested in buying some cocaine. Santana agreed to buy from Paul if he brought it to the licensed premises. Paul left the premises, returned shortly thereafter, and met Santana just outside the door. At that time, Santana paid Paul $30 in exchange for two crack cocaine rocks. During the course of this transaction, respondents' employees Ricky and Gonzalo were nearby. On March 10, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, Santana met with a patron known as Charlie, who offered to sell him some cocaine. Santana handed Charlie $20 and observed him leave the premises, walk across the street, and hand the money to another individual. Shortly thereafter, Charlie returned to the licensed premises and delivered the cocaine rocks to Santana. The exchange between Santana and Charlie took place in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employee Nene. On March 17, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Also on the premises that day were DABT Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, operating separately from Santana to provide backup for him. As he entered the premises, Santana seated himself with Junior and respondents' employee Ricky at a table by the front door. There, in front of Ricky, Santana purchased a cocaine rock from Junior for $20. Ricky, suspicious of Jenkins and Elkin, two female non-latins, warned Santana to be careful because the two females were police officers. On March 18, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, again operating separately from Santana, were also on the premises that day. Upon entering the premises, Santana was approached by a patron known as Reyna who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana responded yes, handed Reyna $25, and Reyna left the premises. After Reyna left the premises, Santana seated himself at the front table. When Reyna returned, she sat down at the table with him and delivered, above the table, two cocaine rocks. This transaction took place in front of respondents' employee Ricky, who again warned Santana to beware of the police officers (Investigators Jenkins and Elkin). Later that day, Santana gave Junior $20 to purchase cocaine for him. When Junior delivered the rock cocaine to Santana it was done in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. During the course of this visit to the premises, Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, also undercover, were seated separately from Santana. At some point they were joined by a male patron who later gave them two marijuana cigarettes. The investigators retired to the women's bathroom and burnt a marijuana cigarette to see what, if any, response it would bring. While one of respondents' employees entered the bathroom after they left, the aroma of marijuana brought no response. On March 21, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry, Santana, respondents' employee Gonzalo, and two black latin male patrons were the only persons present. These patrons approached Santana and inquired if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Santana responded yes, and paid the men $20 for approximately one ounce of marijuana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of Gonzalo. On March 24, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit he met with Junior inside the bathroom, and purchased two cocaine rocks for $40. On March 25, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Santana was approached by Junior who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana handed Junior $40, and Junior left the premises to get the cocaine. Upon his return, Junior placed the cocaine rocks on the counter in front of Santana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. All of the events summarized in the proceeding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondents' employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that all of the employees knew that marijuana and cocaine were being sold on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent and flagrant basis. Neither respondents, who were on notice of such activities, nor any of their employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale of any controlled substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and alcoholic beverage license number 23-8295, series 2-COP, issued to Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristid d/b/a Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, for the premises located at 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1988.
The Issue Respondent is charged with a single incident of selling beer to a minor. The issue is, therefore, if that incident occurred, what disciplinary action should be taken? The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Notice to Show Cause dated September 18, 1984, alleges: On or about the 19th day of August, 1984, you, JEFFREY NELSON ADKINS, a licensed vendor, and/or your agent, servant or employee, did sell, give, and/or serve alcoholic beverages, to wit: three (3) Michelob beers to a person, JOHN JOSEPH KELLAT, under the age of 19, contrary to F.S. 562.11(1). At the hearing, by stipulation, six exhibits were admitted: the Notice to Show Cause, the Request for Hearing, Petitioner's Request for Admissions, Respondent's Answer to the Request, Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories and Respondent's Response to Interrogatories, and Affidavit of the minor, John Joseph Kellat. Petitioner called three witnesses: John Joseph Kellat; Rufus Blanton, beverage officer for the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and William Moore, a New Smyrna Beach police officer. Respondent also called three witnesses: Michael Block, an employee of Brew- thru during the summer of 1984; Troy Long, Market Manager at the Publix supermarket in New Smyrna Beach; and the Respondent, Jeffrey Nelson Adkins.
Findings Of Fact Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Those have been carefully reviewed and considered. Findings of fact which are supported by the evidence have been incorporated herein, unless those findings are subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary. More specifically, Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Fact #2, regarding the employee's failure to deny that he sold the beer, is wholly immaterial in light of Petitioner's chief witness' description of the salesperson and his identification of the licensee as the individual who made the sale. As to Proposed Finding of Fact #3, the only evidence that John Kellat purchased beer on prior occasions was his bare, non-substantiated statement to that effect. Such evidence is neither competent nor substantial when viewed in the context of his testimony as a whole.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing, I recommend that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case dismissing the charge against the licensee. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 10th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Staff Attorney Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Bldg. 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Clay Henderson, Esquire HENDERSON & HENDERSON, P.A. Post Office Box 1840 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070-1840 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Bldg. 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether certain statements by officials of Respondent Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (ABT), constitute an unpromulgated rule that is invalid pursuant to Subsection 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner TWM is a licensed retail vendor of alcoholic beverages. It operates nine stores in Florida that sell alcoholic beverages, including distilled spirits, by the package. Respondent ABT is the state agency authorized by Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, to regulate the alcoholic beverage industry, including manufacturers, distributors and vendors of alcoholic beverages within the State of Florida. Intervenor ABC is a licensed retail vendor of alcoholic beverages, holding in excess of 100 licenses authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages, including distilled spirits, by the package. The Alleged Unpromulgated Rule Florida has a three-tiered system of alcoholic beverage distribution. Manufacturers produce the product and sell to distributors, distributors sell the product at wholesale to licensed vendors, and vendors sell the product to the general public at retail. §§ 561.14(1)-(3), Fla. Stat. The term "in-store servicing" refers generally to activities by distributors or manufacturers on the vendor's premises, such as placing stock on shelves, rotating stock, and affixing prices. On April 4, 2007, Renee Alsobrook emailed a message to John Harris, a governmental consultant, which included the following statement: In researching the coupon rule, I reviewed prior opinions I had provided and determined that this opinion provided to you in March, 2006, was wrong. I WAS WRONG. Section 561.424, F.S., clearly excludes in-store servicing of distilled spirits. Please communicate the position of ABT to your wholesalers and Trone. On April 24, 2007, Stephen Hougland emailed the following message to Mr. Harris: John, after considerable research and consultation, ABT's opinion is that FL law does not permit in-store servicing for spirits. I'd be glad to talk to you about the decision as I am sure you are concerned about the impact on your clients. These two email messages were cited by TWM in its Petition as expressions of a new policy that has not been adopted as a rule and is, therefore, invalid and unenforceable. In the course of discovery, other written statements by ABT employees were found that were also made in April 2007, which TWM contends are expressions of the new policy. In a letter dated April 9, 2007, from Lisa Comingore, assistant general counsel for DBPR, to Charles Bailes of ABC, Ms. Comingore states: Wholesalers and manufacturers of distilled spirits are not authorized to provide in- store servicing by section 561.424, Florida Statutes and would be providing aid to retailers in the form of providing labor for the retailer. Such aid to the retailer could constitute a violation of section 561.42, Florida Statutes. In a letter dated April 30, 2007, from Director Hougland to Mr. and Mrs. John Schaeffer of Great Spirits Liquor & Fine Wine, Director Hougland states: Florida law allows in-store servicing of beer and malt beverages as well as vinous beverages, however, in-store servicing of distilled spirits is not authorized . . . Section 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, specifically excludes in-store servicing of distilled spirits. Wholesalers and manufacturers of distilled spirits are not authorized to provide in- store servicing by section 561.424, Florida Statutes and would be providing aid to retailers in the form of providing labor for the retailer. Such aid to the retailer could constitute a violation of section 561.42, Florida Statutes. The Governing Statutes The federal government and many states, including Florida, enacted "Tied House Evil" laws to prevent the "evils" that arose from relationships between vendors of alcoholic beverages and manufacturers and distributors which caused the vendors to be controlled by or "tied" to the distributors and manufacturers. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., v. Schenck Co., 662 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Musleh v. Fulton Distributing Co. of Florida, 254 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Florida's Tied House Evil law, set forth in Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, provides: No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the beverage laws; nor shall such licensed manufacturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of any rebates of any kind whatsoever. No licensed vendor shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or loan of money or property of any description or any rebates from any such licensed manufacturer or distributor; provided, however, that this does not apply to any bottles, barrels, or other containers necessary for the legitimate transportation of such beverages or to advertising materials and does not apply to the extension of credit, for liquors sold, made strictly in compliance with the provisions of this section. ABT contends that Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages by distributors or manufacturers because it constitutes a gift of "free labor" to the vendor. TWM does not dispute ABT's interpretation of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, as prohibiting in-store servicing as a form of gift, but TWM contends that subsequent legislation resulted in the removal of the prohibition. In 1975, Section 561.423, Florida Statutes, created an exception for in-store servicing of beer and malt beverages: Nothing in s. 561.42 or any other provision of the Beverage Law shall prohibit a distributor of beer or malt beverages from providing in-store servicing of malt beverages. "In-store servicing" as used herein means quality control procedures which include, but are not limited to: rotation of malt beverages on the vendor's shelves, rotation and placing of malt beverages in vendor's coolers, proper stacking and maintenance of appearance and display of malt beverages on vendor's shelves, price stamping of malt beverages on vendor's licensed premises, and moving or resetting any product or display in order to display a distributor's own product when authorized by the vendor. In 1977, Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, created an exception for in-store servicing of wine: Nothing in s. 561.42 or any other provision of the Alcoholic Beverage Law shall prohibit a distributor of wine from providing in- store servicing of wine sold by such distributor to a vendor. "In-store servicing" as used herein means: placing the wine on the vendor's shelves and maintaining the appearance and display of said wine on the vendor's shelves in the vendor's licensed premises; placing the wine not so shelved or displayed in a storage area designated by the vendor, which is located in the vendor's licensed premises; rotation of vinous beverages; and price stamping of vinous beverages in a vendor's licensed premises. This section shall not apply to distilled spirits. (Emphasis added) No similar statute was created to expressly authorize in-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors. After the enactment of Section 561.423 and Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, there should have been little doubt that the Tied House Evil law was intended by the Legislature to prohibit in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages and that only by express exception was in-store servicing of beer and wine by distributors permitted.2/ The only evidence in the record that tends to explain why distilled spirits were treated differently from beer and wine with regard to in-store servicing is a statement made by Charles Bailes of ABC in a letter to Ms. Alsobrook that, "Historically, in-store servicing of perishable products such as wine and beer have been allowed so as to maximize freshness and minimize the chances of consumers purchasing spoiled merchandise." Mr. Bailes goes on to state that distilled spirits are not perishable. Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 The main cause of the current confusion about in-store servicing of distilled spirits can be traced to a rule adopted by ABT in 1985. The year before, Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes, was amended to add the following directive: The Division shall make reasonable rules governing promotional displays and advertising, which rules shall not conflict with or be more stringent than the federal regulations pertaining to such promotional displays and advertising furnished vendors by distributors and manufacturers. ABT responded by promulgating Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058, entitled "Promotional Displays and Advertising," effective January 2, 1985. The rule adopted certain federal regulations by reference: The Division adopts by reference the provisions of subpart D, Chapter 6, of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, regulations 6.81 through 6.101 inclusive. It shall be a violation of Section 561.42, F.S., for any vendor to accept or for any manufacturer or distributor to give a retailer promotional displays, advertising or other such items, services or assistance governed by the regulations adopted by subsection (1) when given in a manner not in strict conformity with the adopted regulations. Subpart D was entitled "Exceptions" and established exceptions to the federal Tied House Evil law. It included exceptions clearly related to promotional displays and advertising, such as "Product Displays," "Inside Signs," "Retailer Advertising Specialties," "Consumer Advertising Specialties," and "Advertising Services." However, Subpart D also included exceptions on subjects that did not appear to involve promotional displays or advertising, such as "Educational Seminars" (for the employees of vendors), "Participation in Retailer Association Activities," "Joint Ventures," "Coil Cleaning Service," and "Stocking, Rotation and Pricing Services." Section 6.99 of the federal regulations, entitled "Stocking, Rotation and Pricing Services," provided: Industry members may, at a retail establishment, stock, rotate and affix the price to distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages which they sell, provided products of other industry members are not altered or disturbed. The rearranging or resetting of all or part of a store or liquor department is not hereby authorized. Because stocking, rotation, and pricing services are synonymous with in-store servicing, ABT's adoption of Section 6.99 by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 authorized in-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors and manufacturers in Florida, in apparent conflict with the governing statutes. The adoption by reference of Section 6.99 also conflicted with Section 561.423 and Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, because these statutes only authorized in-store servicing of beer and wine by distributors, but the federal regulation authorized in-store servicing by "industry members," a term that includes manufacturers. Soon after the adoption of Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-5.048, ABT's 1986 compliance guidelines included a statement that "27 CFR 6.99 and F.S.S. 561.424" authorize "manufacturers or distributors of distilled spirits or wine to stock, rotate and affix the price to their products at a licensed retailer's premises." ABT's 1988, 1993, and 1995 compliance guidelines contained the same statement.3/ Promotional Displays and Advertising The term "promotional displays and advertising" is not defined in Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, but insight into the Legislature's intended meaning for the term can be gleaned from the 1985 amendment of Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes. Following the sentence that directs ABT to adopt rules regarding promotional displays and advertising, the 1985 amendment added "provided, however," followed by eight new paragraphs dealing with specific situations involving promotional displays and advertising: If a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage provides a vendor with expendable retailer advertising specialties such as trays, coasters, mats, menu cards, napkins, cups, glasses, thermometers, and the like, such items shall be sold at a price not less than the actual cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, without limitation in total dollar value of such items sold to a vendor. Without limitation in total dollar value of such items provided to a vendor, a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage may rent, loan without charge for an indefinite duration, or sell durable retailer advertising specialties such as clocks, pool table lights, and the like, which bear advertising matter. If a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage provides a vendor with consumer advertising specialties such as ashtrays, T-shirts, bottle openers, shopping bags, and the like, such items shall be sold at a price not less than the actual cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, but may be sold without limitation in total value of such items sold to a vendor. A manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage may provide consumer advertising specialties described in paragraph (c) to consumers on any vendor’s licensed premises. Coupons redeemable by vendors shall not be furnished by distributors of beer to consumers. Manufacturers or distributors of beer shall not conduct any sampling activities that include tasting of their product at a vendor’s premises licensed for off-premises sales only. Manufacturers and distributors of beer shall not engage in cooperative advertising with vendors. Distributors of beer may sell to vendors draft equipment and tapping accessories at a price not less than the cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, except there is no required charge, and a distributor may exchange any parts which are not compatible with a competitor’s system and are necessary to dispense the distributor’s brands. A distributor of beer may furnish to a vendor at no charge replacement parts of nominal intrinsic value, including, but not limited to, washers, gaskets, tail pieces, hoses, hose connections, clamps, plungers, and tap markers. None of the examples in the statute suggest that in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages comes within the Legislature's intended meaning of promotional displays and advertising. The common meanings of the words "stocking," "rotation," and "pricing" do not match up with the common meanings of the words "promotional displays" and "advertising." As noted above, there were other federal exceptions adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 that involved neither promotional displays nor advertising. ABT offered no explanation for the agency's indiscriminate adoption by reference of all the federal regulations in Subpart D, including those regulations that were not related to promotional displays and advertising. ABT now acknowledges that the 1985 rule was "non-compliant" with statutory law. TWM presented no evidence to show that stocking, rotation, and pricing are, as a matter of fact, forms of promotional displays or advertising. Instead, TWM argues that ABT's 1985 adoption by reference of Section 6.99 and ABT's subsequent representations that in-store servicing of distilled spirits was authorized in Florida, "determined" and "defined" in-store servicing as a promotional display or advertising. ABT changed its position sometime after 1995. In 1997, ABT repealed Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-4.058 (which had been renumbered 61A-4.058). Although ABT replaced that rule with a new rule that regulated promotional displays and advertising, the new rule did not adopt any federal regulations by reference and the subject of stocking, rotation, and pricing services was abandoned, along with some of the other subjects covered by the federal regulations previously adopted by reference.4/ ABT's repeal of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.058 and its adoption of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-1.010 in 1977 was announced in public notices published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and through industry bulletins. Two public hearings were held on Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-1.010, which were attended by industry representatives. The rule prohibited any gift from distributors or manufacturers to vendors that was not specifically identified in the rule or specifically authorized by statute. In-store servicing of distilled spirits is not listed in the rule and, as discussed above, is not specifically authorized by statute. In 1998, ABT issued an industry bulletin to industry representatives on the specific subject of in-store servicing. The bulletin notes that there is no statutory exception for in-store servicing of distilled spirits as there is for beer and wine and states that "Unauthorized services to a vendor would be considered a gift of financial assistance, unless the vendor paid for the services provided to them [sic]." The 1998 bulletin concludes by stating that because of the "confusion about these in-store servicing provisions," no enforcement action would be taken against a vendor, distributor, or manufacturer for unauthorized services provided before the date of the bulletin. After the 1997 repeal of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-4.058, the main cause of confusion on the subject of in-store servicing of distilled spirits had been removed. However, the 1998 bulletin and any other efforts ABT made to inform and educate the regulated industry about its change of position were not completely successful. In-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors continues to some extent today.5/ ABT does not dispute that the prohibition of in-store servicing of distilled spirits has general statewide application and that rulemaking on the subject is not infeasible or impractical. ABT's position is that the prohibition of in-store servicing of distilled spirits does not require a rule because the prohibition is established by statute.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license No. 16-816-SR, 4-COP, which is a special restaurant license. At about quarter of ten on the morning of September 13, 1977, Emil Marrero, James F. McAuley and Joe L. Nato, all of whom were then beverage officers, arrived at respondent's place of business. Officer Marrero purchased a fifth of rum from Elizabeth Boyd, who was behind the counter in the package store portion of respondent's premises. Ms. Boyd told Officer Marrero that, if he wanted a meal, he "would have to go to the kitchen around the building." (T29). Officers Marrero and Mato went outside the building in search of the kitchen but found the back door to the kitchen locked, Back inside, officer Nato discovered some slips of paper and cigarette packages that lacked tax stamps. Then respondent's employee Margaret Faye Lewis was asked where the kitchen was, she pointed to a padlocked door which John Davis, another of respondent's employee unlocked for the beverage officers. With some difficulty, the beverage officers located the kitchen, where they found respondent's cook, James Dowling. In response to the officers' questions, Mr. Dowling said that he had opened the kitchen that morning at quarter or half past ten as he customarily did seven days a week; that he ordinarily closed the kitchen at four in the morning; and that the business was open for the sale of liquor from seven in the morning till two the following morning. Officer Marrero wrote out a statement for Mr. Bowling's signature reciting the opening and closing times Mr. Dowling had related to him. Petitioner's exhibit No. 3. At this point, Robert H. Close, respondent's president, appeared and asked to read the statement, after which he said: These are a bunch of fucking lies. The restaurant is open at 7:00 A.M. in the morning. You have got no fucking right coming in here and telling my employees to sign anything. (T54) As a result of this outburst, Mr. Dowling declined to sign the statement Officer Marrero had prepared; and an argument between Mr. Close and Officer Marrero ensued. On respondent's premises, Officer McAuley counted "153 chairs, 32 2' by 2' tables, 36 cocktail tables and two tables capable of seating four people." Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. He found 43 spoons in the kitchen along with various victuals. Officer Marrero never actually requested a meal of any of respondent's employees. Once he had identified himself as a beverage officer, he testified, he "imagine[d] a roach in the corner would have jumped up and served [him] a meal if [he] so desired to have one." (T71). Although not assigned to the kitchen, Mr. Davis and Mrs. Lewis were available, before Mr. Dowling's arrival on September 13, 1977, to cook for respondent's patrons. Mrs. Lewis testified without contradiction that a full course meal could have been prepared if one had been requested. (T87). On September 13, 1977, "the Broward County Health Department . . . cited the [respondent] for being in violation of certain sanitary codes established by the State or County." Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. See petitioner's exhibit No. 4. On the same day, on behalf of petitioner, Officer Marrero gave respondent official, written notice that it had "been closed by the county health department & any further sale of alcoholic beverages without maintaining the SR requirement is in violation of [law]." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5. On the following day, Officers Marrero, McAuley and Mato returned to respondent's premises and waited outside while Officer Bates went in and, at twenty past two in the afternoon, bought a bottle. After Officer Bates' purchase, respondent was charged with "selling alcoholic beverages, being closed down by the Health Department." (T63). At three o'clock on the afternoon of September 14, 1977, representatives of the Broward County Health Department inspected respondent's premises and lifted the closure order, at the conclusion of the inspection. Although Mr. Close testified otherwise, respondent served no food on September 14, 1977, before the closure order was lifted. Respondent sold alcoholic beverages on September 14, 1977. On September 13, 1977, Officer McAuley asked Margaret Lewis if "the records" were on the premises. She answered affirmatively and led Officer McAuley to certain invoices and other records which he reviewed briefly. Later he asked Mr. Close "for all the invoices pursuant to the rule;" (T97) and Mr. Close was "requested . . . by official notice . . . [to] produce all documents concerning the operation of his business . . . (T123). In response to this request, Mr. Close furnished the beverage officers all of respondent's records then on the premises. Not on the premises were liquor invoices and other records dated on and after September 1, 1977, and invoices reflecting purchases of food. These records were at respondent's bookkeeper's at the time of the beverage officers' visit on September 13, 1977, but had been returned to respondent's premises by the time beverage officers returned on September 14, 1977. On September 13, 1977, the beverage officers left with all the records respondent had furnished. The beverage officers did not inquire about the additional records on September 14, 1977, and respondent's employees did not mention them at that time. Respondent's employees never took the additional records to petitioner's office. Robert Close gained control of respondent and respondent's license in 1968. On April 13, 1970, respondent paid a stipulated civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00), because a patron bought liquor in the package store portion of respondent's premises and shared it with a minor in the lounge portion of respondent's premises. On March 2, 1971, respondent paid a civil penalty of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) in connection with an alleged violation of Rule 7A-3.15(b), Florida Administrative Code. On July 2, 1975, respondent paid a civil penalty of seventeen hundred fifty dollars ($1,750.00) after a notice to show cause alleged the following matters: On the 19 day of July 1973, on your licensed premises, SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE, FREDDY THOMAS, your agent, servant or employee, did sell to Agent L. LAWSON BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, for the sum and consideration of $20.00 U.S. Currency, a quantity of narcotics, to wit Heroin. This being in violation of F. S. 893.13 (1A1). On or about September 21, 1973, on the above described premises, you, your agent, servant or employee did continue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued, in violation of Florida Alcoholic Beverage Rule 7A-3.15. On or about September 21, 1973 on the above described premises, you failed to maintain necessary china and table ware to serve 200 persons, in violation of Florida Alcoholic Beverage rule 7A-3.15(e). On or about October 17, 1973 investigation revealed that you, SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE INC., D/B/A SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE, did fail to submit within 10 days a certified copy of minutes of stockholders meeting at which a change of officers was effected, in violation of Florida Alcoholic Rule 7A-2.07(2). On or about September 21, 1973 investigation revealed that on August 8, 1973, August 30, 1973, September 6, 1973, September 13, 1973, you, SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE, INC., D/B/A SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE did fail to maintain the sanitary code of Florida, in violation of F. S. 381.031 and chapter 100.13 FAC Sanitary Code of Florida. On October 15, 1975, respondent paid a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for failure to disclose to petitioner a change in its corporate officers. Respondent employs seven or eight persons. Rule 7A-3.15(b) Florida Administrative Code, for alleged violations of which respondent paid civil penalties, has since been adjudged inapplicable to licenses like respondent's. Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1976).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondent's license in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Staff Attorney 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert C. Stone, Esquire Suite 400, Center Court Building 2450 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33020
The Issue Whether Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton should be granted re-registration of terminated license No. 34741-1 as indicated in the Administrative Complaint dated 7-18-78, pursuant to Section 464.21(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton appeared at the hearing without counsel or other representative. The Hearing Officer explained her rights in an administrative hearing and she acknowledged that she understood the same. The Respondent also stated that she is now married and that her married name is Farris. Petitioner moved to amend paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint to reflect that Respondent was arrested in January, 1976 rather than 1975 as alleged therein. There being no objection, the request was granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a Licensed Practical Nurse with the Florida State Board of Nursing in 1974 and such license was automatically terminated on April 1, 1977, for non-payment of license renewal fee. On August 11, 1977, Respondent filed an application for re-registration of her terminated license with Petitioner. Petitioner reviewed the application and denied the same by a letter to Respondent dated October 28, 1977, under the authority of Section 464.21(d), Florida Statutes. The specific basis for denial was that Respondent had a prior arrest for possession of marijuana. (Testimony of Johnson, Exhibit 1-2) On February 4, 1975, Hillsborough County Deputy Sheriff Gene L. Stokes and Detective William Strickland, who were operating as undercover narcotic detectives, entered Respondent's residence at 3213 Delray Drive, Tampa, Florida. They had made prearrangements with Joseph H. Farris, who also resided at that residence, to purchase approximately two pounds of marijuana for $175.00 per pound. Farris met the officers at the door and escorted them into the kitchen where Respondent, Albert Yourn, and Thomas Spear, were seated around the kitchen table. A neighbor, Nancy Anderson, entered the residence at the same time as did Stokes and Strickland. Farris proceeded to cut a quantity of material from a compressed block of a substance that appeared to he marijuana. He placed the severed portion in a ziplock "haggle" and weighed it on a scale located on the kitchen table. At that point, the officers arrested all persons on the premises for possession and delivery of marijuana. A search of the residence pursuant to a search warrant revealed the presence of other quantities of marijuana and implements for its use in a kitchen desk drawer and in a cabinet above the kitchen stove. Two bags of marijuana were also found in Spear's possession as a result of a search of his person. The amount of marijuana remaining on the kitchen table was approximately 920 grams and a "haggle" containing approximately 16 pre-wrapped ounces of marijuana was also on the kitchen table. The substance which had been sold to Stokes was delivered to the Florida State Crime Laboratory in Tampa and, after analysis by Richard H. Estes, a forensic chemist employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, was determined to be cannabis sativa, also known as marijuana. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled drug under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Stokes, Estes) On February 13, 1975, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida against Respondent for possession of more than five grams of marijuana on February 4, 1975, in violation of subsection 893.13(1)(e) Florida Statutes. On May 25, 1976, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge and Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt was entered by the Court with probation for a period of two years. (Exhibits 3-4) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had no knowledge that marijuana was being sold at her residence on February 5, 1975, and that she had not entered the house until subsequent to the entrance by the detectives. She admitted that her residence had been a gathering place for individuals in the neighborhood, including some of whom she did not approve and also persons unknown to her. She testified that although she pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of marijuana, she was under the impression that she was simply acknowledging that marijuana had been present at her residence. She also testified that when she had discovered what was taking place at her home, she "started a little hassle " with Farris. Her present husband, Joseph Farris, testified and corroborated her version of the incident, including her claim that she was unaware of the presence of marijuana on the premises. In addition, her cousin, Albert Yourn, who was present at the time of the arrest, testified that Respondent was not in the house at the time the drug transaction was taking place, but that she arrived prior to the arrest. (Testimony of Respondent, J. Farris, Yourn) Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent meets all other qualifications for licensure. They do not show the presence of any other derogatory information prior to or subsequent to Respondent's arrest. (Testimony of Johnson)
Recommendation That the application of Respondent Della Elaine Lamberton Farris for re-registration as a Licensed Practical Nurse be denied under the authority of Section 464.21(1)(d) Florida Statutes. That favorable consideration he given to any subsequent application by Respondent for re-registration, provided that such application is accompanied by proof of present good character. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Della Elaine Lamberton Farris 3202 Clifford Sample Drive Tampa, Florida 33619
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Maria C. Perez has been licensed as a pharmacist under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0018025. At all times material hereto, Respondent Perez has been the managing pharmacist at Respondent San Lazaro Pharmacy. At all times material hereto, Respondent San Lazaro Pharmacy has been the holder of a permit to operate a community pharmacy under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued permit number 0002864. At all times material hereto, Olegario Cepro (or Cepero) was employed at Respondent pharmacy. At no time material hereto was Cepro licensed as a pharmacist or registered as a pharmacy intern in the State of Florida. On March 1, 1983, Georgina Jorge, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Respondent pharmacy. Jorge asked Cepro for 30 Berocca tablets, 10 Librax capsules, and 5 Darvon Compound capsules. Cepro went into the dispensary department and thereafter delivered to Jorge 45 pills. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro with a prescription. On March 1, 1983, the pills received were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory. A subsequent chemical analysis of the pills revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as chlordiazepoxide, the active ingredient in Librax, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. Another sample which was analyzed revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as dextro propoxyphene, the active ingredient in Darvon Compound, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription to be dispensed. The suspected Berocca was not analyzed. On March 8, 1983, Jorge returned to the Respondent pharmacy. She asked Cepro for 10 penicillin tablets, 20 Valium tablets, and 10 Darvon Compound capsules. Cepro obtained from the pharmacy dispensary and gave to Jorge 10 tablets which appeared to be penicillin, 20 tablets which appeared to be Valium, and 20 capsules which appeared to be Darvon Compound. At that time, Respondent Perez was in the pharmacy dispensary. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro with a prescription. On March 8, 1983, the above substances were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory. A subsequent chemical analysis of the pills revealed in one sample the presence of penicillin, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. Analysis of another substance revealed the presence of the controlled substance diazepam, the active ingredient in Valium, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. On March 25, 1983, Jorge went to the Respondent pharmacy and asked Cepro for prices on bottles of Valium, Mebaral, Lomotil, Ritalin, Trofanil, and Lasix. Prices were quoted to Jorge by Cepro. Thereafter, Cepro delivered to Jorge 20 apparent Valium tablets, 36 apparent Ritalin tablets, 250 apparent Mebaral tablets, and 20 apparent Darvon Compound capsules. On this occasion, Jorge observed Respondent Perez, the licensed managing pharmacist, in the dispensary. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro with a prescription. On March 25, 1983, the substances which Jorge had received at the Respondent pharmacy were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory. A subsequent chemical analysis of the substances revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as methylphenidate, the active ingredient in Ritalin, which is a medicinal drug requiring a prescription to be dispensed. Methylphenidate is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Laboratory analysis of additional substances received from the March 25, 1983, transaction revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as mephobarbital, the active ingredient in Mebaral, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. In addition, one of the 20 capsules received was analyzed and revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as propoxyphene, the active ingredient in Darvon Compound, which is a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. On March 28, 1903, Jorge went to the Respondent pharmacy once again. She asked Cepro for 20 Valium tablets and 20 Lomotil tablets. Jorge saw Respondent Perez in the prescription department. Cepro went into the prescription or dispensary department and returned with suspected controlled substances. At no time during this transaction did Jorge present Cepro or Respondent Perez with a prescription. On March 28, 1983, the suspected controlled substances were taken to the Metropolitan Dade County Crime Laboratory for analysis. A subsequent chemical analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of the controlled substance known as diazepam, the active ingredient in Valium, a medicinal drug requiring a prescription for dispensing. On March 28, 1983, an audit of the controlled substances was conducted at the Respondent pharmacy by Edward Bludworth, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation. That audit revealed that Respondents could not provide prescriptions or other documentation to show the dispensing of 41 Darvon Compound-65, 1,005 Valium 5 mg., 801 Valium 10 mg., 280 Tranxene 3.75 mg., 33,451 Talwin 50 mg., and 20 Talwin injectable vials. Darvon, Tranxene, Valium, and Talwin are all compounds containing controlled substances as defined in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the allegations of Count III [sic II; paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16] of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Perez in DOAH Case No. 83-2918.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count III of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Maria C. Perez, finding her guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and revoking her license to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent San Lazaro Pharmacy guilty of each and every count in the Administrative Complaint filed against it and revoking its permit to operate a community pharmacy in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. M. Schwitalla, Esquire 135 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wanda Willis, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
