Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is estopped from denying petitioner's application for a transfer of a special restaurant license.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1981, Applicant applied for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, a special restaurant license held by Charlies the Lakes Restaurant, Inc. & Willman Co.. DABT denied the application, contending that the licensed premises did not meet minimum seating or square footage requirements. (P-1, letter of denial dated April 8, 1982). The licensed premises, known as the Lakeside Cafe, is located at 6125 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lake percent, Florida. It has less than 4,000 square feet of service area and is able to seat less than 200 patrons at tables. (P-1, R-1 Stipulation of counsel) Applicant contends that since DABT granted a special restaurant license (4 COP-SRX) to the present and previous licensees, it is now estopped to deny the application. Although DABT has continuously granted such a license, license applicants have twice filed affidavits indicating that the licensed premises meets square footage and seating requirements. In 1976 and 1980 two separate applicants filed sworn affidavits stating that the licensed premises occupied 4,000 or more square feet of floor space and could accommodate 200 or more patrons at tables. On November 17, 1981, Applicant signed an agreement to purchase the licensed premises from the present licensee for $210,000.00. Under that agreement, the present licensee was required to transfer its interest in the beverage license to applicant. (P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Applicant's application to transfer license No. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1982.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application to change its corporate officers should be denied because the proposed officer allegedly lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Village Zoo holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-839, Series 4- COP SR, authorizing it to serve alcoholic beverages at its bar (the "licensed premises") at 900 Sunrise Lane, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 22, 1982, the Village Zoo filed an application with DABT to change corporate officers by adding James C. Dowd as a vice president1. While this application was pending, James C. Dowd was employed as one of the managers at the Village Zoo. One of his duties was to help the bartender serve alcoholic beverages on an as-needed basis. On November 5, 1982, undercover Beverage Officer Tom Wheeler, 24, entered the licensed premises to investigate complaints of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons--persons under the age of 19. He paid a cover charge at the door, his identification was not checked. Inside, he saw 50-75 young patrons crowded in the area of the second floor bar. Two persons were tending bar, one of whom was James C. Dowd. Officer Wheeler saw two young patrons, William Esler, 17, and Kelly Heatherman, 18, approach the bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd, who then served them two alcoholic beverages. (William Esler ordered and was served a Whiskey and Seven- up; Kelly Heatherman ordered and was served a Budweiser beer). Mr. Dowd served them these drinks without asking their age or checking their identification. When these two underaged individuals ordered the drinks, they were standing at the bar and in plain view of Mr. Dowd; they were neither standing behind others nor hidden from view. After Mr. Dowd served these two drinks, he was arrested and charged with the crime of serving alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 19. When Kelly Heatherman and William Esler, the two underaged persons, entered the premises that evening, they paid a cover charge but their age was not questioned at the entry door. Neither was their identification checked. The Village Zoo has a reputation in the community as a popular gathering place for young people. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman had been there before. William Esler had been there twice, prior to the November 5, 1982, incident, and once since. His identification had never been checked, although he did not order a drink on his last visit. Kelly Heatherman had been there every week from approximately September (1982) to November 5, 1982. During most of his visits, he ordered alcoholic beverages. One time, his identification was checked at the door and he was turned away. Since the November 5, 1982, incident, he has returned to the Village Zoo a couple of times. James C. Dowd was aware of Heatherman's continued patronage of the Village Zoo and described Heatherman as a regular customer. Heatherman continued to order and was served alcoholic beverages during his visits to the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982. After November 5, 1982, Heatherman continued to enter the Village Zoo without having his identification checked, despite the fact he was identified to the Village Zoo and James C. Dowd, on November 5, 1982, as being under the legal age (19) to possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman were, as of the date of the administrative hearing on this case, under the age of 19 years. James C. Dowd knew or should have known that Kelly Heatherman's consumption of alcoholic beverages served by the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982, was contrary to the Beverage Law. (This paragraph contains findings of fact which are in addition to those found by the Hearing Officer. Such additional facts are not contrary to those found by the Hearing Officer, rather they amplify the same and are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of sworn testimony of Kelly Heatherman, William Esler and James C. Dowd). The Village Zoo had an announced policy prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons and prohibiting their entry onto the licensed premises. To enforce this policy, two persons were posted at the entryway to check identification and collect cover charges from patrons. Peter Balcunas, and off-duty Fort Lauderdale policeman, was also hired to provide security and assistance to the door-checkers. He was ordinarily posted near the front door, outside the premises. Under this Village Zoo policy, the two door-checkers had the primary responsibility to check the identification of patrons and prevent underaged persons from entering the premises. All employees, however, had the duty to check the identification of any patron if there was any question or doubt about whether the individual was of drinking age. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman fall within this "questionable or doubtful" category. From their demeanor and outward appearance at hearing, it is difficult to determine their true age. Their faces are mature for their age and they could reasonably pass as 18, 19 or 20-year olds. On the evening of November 5, 1982, Kelly Heatherman and William Esler entered the premises, walking past the door-checkers and Officer Balcunas. They then proceeded to the second floor bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd. Their age was not questioned and their identification was not checked. The Village Zoo's announced policy of forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, including steps taken to enforce it, compares favorably with those of similar businesses in the area serving alcoholic beverages. James C. Dowd, the person allegedly lacking in good moral character, has a reputation in the community as an honest trustworthy, hardworking and law- abiding man. He attends church regularly. His business associates view him as a man who honors his financial obligations and who has good moral character. Mr. Dowd does not recall serving alcoholic beverages to William Esler and Kelly Heatherman on November 5, 1982. There was a crowd of customers near the bar at the time, and he was helping the bartender serve drinks as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in his haste, he violated the Village Zoo policy. He served alcoholic beverages to two youthful-looking persons whose age was difficult to determine, without inquiring as to their age or checking their identification. There is no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. (Two sentences contained in the Recommended Order at this place, were deleted as such constitute conclusions of law, not of fact). Although there was evidence that the two underaged persons had been served alcoholic beverages at the Village Zoo prior to and after November 5, 1982, it was not shown that Mr. Dowd served them or that (as one of the managers) he was culpably responsible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Village Zoo's application to change corporate officers be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied on the grounds stated in Respondent's letter of denial dated November 18, 1982.
Findings Of Fact During September, 1979, Del Percio was asked by an acquaintance of his in Orlando, Florida, Kenneth McCall, to assist in the running of a lounge which McCall owned there called "The Foxy Lady." Del Percio agreed to do this, and a written agreement was signed by the parties whereby Del Percio bought into a newly formed corporation, Success and Prosperity, Inc., with both Del Percio and McCall to each receive 50 percent of the corporate stock and with Del Percio to be president and McCall, vice president. Leonard P. Del Percio was a 50 percent owner of Success and Prosperity, Inc., and had the right and duty to manage the business operated by it called "The Shingle Shack." McCall was to have no management responsibilities. The Shingle Shack was the new name of the lounge owned previous to September, 1979, by Kenneth McCall known as "The Foxy Lady," which operated under license numbered 58-1076, at 3135 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Notwithstanding Del Percio's allegation that his 50 percent ownership of the corporate stock was for his protection in managing the business, the stockholders' agreement signed on August 13, 1979, by both McCall and Petitioner reflects that Del Percio loaned McCall a certain amount of money and McCall sold Del Percio one-half of all the shares of the corporation for an amount equal to the loan. On September 13, 1979, Del Percio, as corporate president, filled out and signed various papers requesting that 2-COP license numbered 58-1076, issued in the name of Kenneth McCall, be transferred to Success and Prosperity, Inc., for a lounge called "The Shingle Shack" doing business at the same location as its predecessor business, The Foxy Lady, which was utilizing the license at that time. These application forms were never submitted to the appropriate authorities for transfer, and the license was never issued in Del Percio's name or the name of Success and Prosperity, Inc., although the business was formed and the lounge name was changed from The Foxy Lady to The Shingle Shack. Del Percio became actively engaged in management of the business during September, 1979. The license was to be the only asset of any major value to the corporation, but it never became an asset of the corporation. On April 20, 1980, Kenneth McCall signed a stipulation calling for the revocation of license numbered 58-1076 because of repeated violations of Florida Statutes taking place at the lounge in question during the month of November, 1979, and because of the failure to file the application for the transfer of the license after a bona fide sale of the business in whose name the license was issued.
Recommendation On the basis of the facts and conclusions above, it is RECOMMENDED: That Leonard P. Del Percio, doing business as the Yum Yum Tree, be issued a license as applied for. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leonard P. Del Percio Post Office Box 6202, Station A Daytona Beach, Florida 32022 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Executive Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of a controlled substance (for which adjudication was withheld) is sufficient to support the imposition of discipline with regard to his alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to issue beverage licenses pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Prior to September 11, 2000, Respondent, doing business as Smiley's, was the owner and holder of a beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP, which permits him to sell beer and wine for consumption on premises. On October 9, 1998, Respondent was charged by information with sale and delivery of cocaine. He was acquitted of that charge on May 12, 2000. Subsequently in a separate incident, Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine and on September 11, 2000, pleaded no contest to that charge. Pursuant to Respondent's timely request for formal proceedings, Petitioner's counsel initiated discovery in the course of this administrative proceeding through a Request for Admissions to which Respondent failed to respond. Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this circumstance and, upon motion of Petitioner, the Request for Admissions was deemed admitted. Those admissions establish that Respondent entered a no contest plea on September 11, 2000, to the charge of possession of cocaine and that the plea bargain negotiated at that time also included two days' incarceration. Additionally, the admissions establish that Respondent is aware that possession of cocaine is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years. Respondent's own testimony is uncorroborated by other direct evidence and fails to establish that he possesses good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Kwilecki, Jr., Esquire 629 North Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. John P. Szabo Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-03732SRX, for licensed premises at 411 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg. In September, 1987, and particularly on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987, the Respondent's licensed premises were open for business, including the sale of alcoholic beverages under the authority of the Respondent's license. On at least three separate occasions--on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987,--the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises at times when the service of full-course meals had been discontinued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the alcoholic beverage license of the Respondent, Acobos, Inc., license number 62-037325RX. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tim Christopoulos, President Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe 411 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether petitioner's suspension of respondents' license should be terminated or extended, or whether other disciplinary action should be taken against the license for the reasons alleged in the notice to show cause?
Findings Of Fact Respondents Raymond and Gwendolyn House hold alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00177, Series 4-COP, for Ray's Lounge & Package at 501 East Baars Street in a crime-ridden section of Pensacola, Florida. Until petitioner closed them down on October 27, 1991, as far as respondents and their managers knew, the licensed premises stood, in recent times, like an island in a veritable sea of open illegality. Mrs. House stationed security guards in front of the lounge, and assigned them the duty of keeping undesirables out. Young people ignore "no loitering" signs in the area and congregate on street corners, spilling into the street, blocking traffic and keeping "older folks" from passing. In the neighborhood outside respondents' establishment, drug sales take place in plain view of passersby. Although the authorities have closed the lounge, these problems persist. Except on Saturdays and Sundays when her husband opened the bar, Mrs. House arrived at ten in the morning and stayed until seven or eight at night, when she turned things over to the assistant manager, Ernestine Dunklin, or to her son Michael. Sometimes she came back after supper. The parents of six grown children, one of whom was allegedly prosecuted for selling heroin in the lounge in July of 1982, Mr. and Mrs. House have owned Ray's Lounge & Package for 18 years. Mr. House, who has worked at the Naval Air Station for two decades, leaves most of the management to his wife. Maggie Baldwin, who had worked at Ray's Package & Lounge for the last 15 years, arrived at seven and stayed until closing. She usually sat just inside the entrance, where she checked younger patrons' IDs. Neither Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Dunklin nor Ms. House has ever seen drugs used or distributed inside the lounge, or anybody appearing to use or sell drugs there. In the last few months, young women named Brenda and Senora worked at the lounge. Mario, another of the Houses' four sons and a full-time "installer" for Cox Cable, filled in for Ernestine Dunklin on August 24, 1991, when she was away at a cousin's wedding, but he has not worked at the lounge since. Like his brothers Raymond Jr., and Herman, he sometimes patronized the bar. On the night of September 1, 1991, however, Mario House was at home. John Anderson "Bud" McCants, who looked to be in his fifties, spent a lot of time at the lounge, where he was permitted to "bus" tables for tips. Although never on respondents' payroll, he also acted as a waiter, bringing drinks to patrons' tables and taking their money to a barmaid who (unlike him) was authorized to operate a cash register. He ran errands for Ms. House and often drove her home from the lounge. For these services, she paid him in cash. Many people who frequented Ray's Lounge & Package, in some cases three or four times weekly, among whom are Barbara Livingston, Helen Gaines, Randy Jean Peeples Broughton, and professional people including a doctor, an engineer, and Elmer Jenkins, a retired college professor who serves on the Escambia County School Board, have never seen or smelled drugs being used or sold there. Willie James Crenshaw, who lives four or five houses from Ray's Package & Lounge, was a regular customer Sunday nights. At least then, the crowd was mostly 50-ish and older, the proprietors' generation. But young "jits" also patronized the lounge, and respondents felt constrained to take steps to keep the premises "clean." A metal sign on the front door reads: ANYONE CAUGHT FIGHTING OR USING ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS ON THESE PREMISES WILL BE BARRED FROM THIS CLUB FOR LIFE AND SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW THANK YOU THE MANAGEMENT Respondents' Exhibit No. 1. Inside, signs were posted "from one end to the other," including in the bathrooms, advising patrons that monitors were on the look out for illegal activities. Friends, a grandson and employees did help monitor, including occasionally checking both bathrooms. When Ms. House thought she saw drugs being sold outside, she called the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, sometimes as often as five or six times a night. Between October 26, 1990, and October 31, 1991, sheriff's deputies made 289 trips to Ray's Package & Lounge. Perhaps partly because of her calls, law enforcement officials decided to "target" Ray's Lounge & Package. Undercover Agents Dispatched Casey Roberts, a "professional contract operator" whose primary occupation since 1972 has been as a confidential informant for law enforcement, found himself idle after some 60 domestic and an additional, approximately 60 international exploits. When he asked a friend at a federal agency for work, his friend put him in touch with Ray Reed, a special assistant to Escambia County's Sheriff, Charlie W. Johnson. The Escambia County Sheriff's Department also asked to "borrow" an undercover operative from Orange County. Orange County Deputy Sheriff Julia A. Chatman arrived in Pensacola in time to accompany Mr. Roberts to Ray's Package & Lounge on August 24, 1991. Both wore "wires," microphones and transmitters that Mr. Reed and Escambia County Deputy Sheriff Roosevelt Walker, Jr. (on every occasion but two) monitored from a vehicle nearby. As it happened, August 24, 1991, was Mrs. House's 63rd birthday. Entering the bar, the agents found what Mr. Roberts described as a "happy type of environment." After a half-hour visit to the bar between four and six o'clock that afternoon, the undercover agents returned around supper time and stayed an hour and a half. The birthday celebrants had shrimp for dinner. About ten o'clock that night, undercover agents Roberts and Chatman returned a third time and purchased a small plastic bag of cocaine from Bud McCants for $40 or $50. An occasional user of marijuana and cocaine, Mr. McCants, a "known liar and cheat," also has a problem with alcohol. (But somebody else had put the Crown Royal he was accused of stealing in his jacket pocket, he testified.) The uncontroverted testimony was that Mrs. House did not know that he "did drugs." After the purchase, the undercover agents left the bar and gave the cocaine to their handlers, then returned a fourth time and bought two more plastic bags of cocaine from "Bud" McCants for $40 each. Although she was on the premises the whole time, Mrs. House was unaware of either transaction. Both occurred while the bar was crowded. Each packet was on the order of an inch square, contained approximately one gram and could be carried unobtrusively in the palm of the hand. The next day Ms. Chatman and Mr. Roberts returned for an hour or two, and found only seven or eight other customers. Mrs. House was not at the bar then. (Her husband was not on the premises on any of the occasions on which the undercover agents visited.) Casey Roberts bought two pills containing hydromorphone hydrochloride or "Dilaudid" from Raymond House, Jr. First Roberts gave Raymond $100. A little while later Raymond left the premises. As he returned, Roberts met him at the door and received the pills in a "hand exchange." On August 30, 1991, agent Roberts paid Mr. McCants $40 for cocaine, only 25 or 30 feet from where Mrs. House, unaware of the transaction, was cleaning collard greens. On September 1, 1991, Roberts bought cocaine from McCants for $50 on two separate occasions. On September 4, 1991, Roberts again bought cocaine from McCants for $50, and also bought a single pill of hydromorphone hydrochloride (delivered in a folded napkin) for $60 from Raymond House, Jr. On September 7, 1991, the undercover agents returned to Ray's Lounge & Package Store. Ms. Chatman asked Senora where she could get some "blow," by which she meant cocaine (although Senora originally understood her inquiry to relate to marijuana.) Senora spoke to Michael Collins who approached Ms. Chatman. Eventually a third person, Dave, gave her cocaine in exchange for $50. Altogether the undercover agents went inside Ray's Lounge & Package on eight separate days, as many as four times on a single day. On ten to fifteen of these trips, they failed to obtain drugs. Ms. Chatman testified that the first time she offered Raymond House, Jr. drugs, he said "No, I don't deal with that," and returned money she had thrust on him. Now facing criminal charges, he did not testify himself. Licensees Not Shown To Be Culpable Ms. House testified convincingly that she did not know anything about any of the drug transactions proven at hearing, and that she was shocked and angry when she learned of them (on or after October 27, 1991.) The other evidence is completely consistent with her testimony in this regard. Nothing in the evidence suggested that Raymond House, Sr. had any knowledge of the transactions. The respondents knew that their son, Raymond House, Jr., was accused of agreeing to sell a packet of heroin over the telephone while working in the lounge in 1982. In fact, they removed the telephone on that account. Events in 1982 resulted in administrative proceedings against their license. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Petitioner also proved that, in a case of mistaken identity, Bud McCants was arrested in 1986 on the licensed premises; and that, as it turned out, he had a single marijuana cigarette on his person at that time. But the evidence did not show that respondents knew about the marijuana (which had not occasioned the arrest.) Except for reports months and years earlier of drug use or dealing by patrons, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that respondents had reason to know (before October 27, 1991) of any illegal activity on the licensed premises since 1982, much less than they condoned, encouraged or fostered it. Mrs. House responded diligently and appropriately to any report of illegal activity that reached her, as far as the credible evidence showed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that petitioner terminate the suspension of respondents' license forthwith, and dismiss the notice to show cause filed against the license. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6985 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 6, 11, 13, 17, and footnote 2, the evidence did not clearly establish that Raymond House, Jr. worked as a manager of the lounge or that respondents employed him in any other capacity. Credible testimony put him behind the bar helping himself to drinks, but Ms. Dunklin, who was responsible for work assignments, testified that he was not an employee, and was not ever scheduled to work; and her testimony has been credited. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3 and footnote No. 1, the evidence showed that the Houses and Mr. McCants had known each other since 1968 or 1969, but not that he had worked for them continuously since then. At all pertinent times, however, the evidence did establish that he was a de facto employee of the licensees, even though not on the payroll. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7 and footnotes Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Casey Roberts' testimony was wholly unreliable (and came to a sudden halt when he was asked to testify without referring to the administrative complaint.) His descriptions of accused sellers and others, which he rattled off with seemingly great assurance, bore no resemblance to reality. But for Ms. Chatman's testimony and that of the law enforcement officers who monitored conversations electronically, none of the transactions with Roberts would have been established. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 15 and 18, there was no evidence of drug use or drug dealing that was not carefully hidden from respondents and their managers. Bud McCants did not testify otherwise, (even though Bud McCants was brought to the hearing from jail where he is awaiting trial on charges of selling cocaine, giving him a strong incentive to cooperate with the authorities.) The fact that patrons discarded a marijuana cigarette, "suspected cocaine," and pills when the raid occurred on October 27, 1991, does not mean these items were visible beforehand, or intended for use or sale on the premises. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only evidence of conviction was hearsay. Respondents' proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 5, respondents did not produce all the regular customers. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 7, the monitoring officers received uninterrupted transmissions from the undercover agents' microphones, and could hear (usually loud) music as they entered the lounge, even if they did not have visual contact then. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 10, although petitioner proved drug transactions occurred, petitioner did not prove that respondents knew this or were in any way responsible for it. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Leo A. Thomas, Esquire Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas Mayer & Mitchell P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32501 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue The Issue presented by this case concerns the entitlement of Wilbur Gloster to receive a new Series 2-APS beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Wilbur Gloster, who resides at 3303 Armstrong Court, Fort Myers, Florida, applied to the Respondent, State of Florida , Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to be issued a new Series 2-APS beverage license. After review of that license request, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issued a letter disapproving the license application. This letter of disapproval was dated May 24, 1979, and stated as a grounds for denial the belief by the Director that the applicant was not of the requisite good moral character required by Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. Wilbur Gloster, the present Petitioner, took issue with the Director's denial and requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings conduct the proceeding and on April 22, 1980, the formal hearing was held to consider the question of the Petitioner's entitlement to be granted the subject beverage license. The facts of the case reveal that Wilbur Gloster, also known as Wilburt Gloster, was sentenced to serve confinement at hard labor in the State Prison System of Florida for a period of two (2) years for the offense of uttering a forged instrument (Section 831.02, Florida Statutes). This followed an Order of Revocation of Probation which the Petitioner had received for the above-stated offense. In addition, the Petitioner was sentenced in two (2) cases to five- year (5) terms to run concurrently with the offense of uttering a forged instrument, and these latter sentences were for the sale of marijuana (Section 404.02, Florida Statutes). These sentences were received in April and May, 1973, and the Petitioner was additionally fined in the amount of $500.00 for possession of marijuana. The terms and conditions of these sentences and fine may be found in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Gloster served three (3) years of his sentence and has been out of prison for five (5) years, within which time he worked for "Haverty's" for a period of three (3) years, which employment terminated in October, 1979. At present Gloster works with his father in the landscaping business in Naples, Florida, and lives with his mother at the aforementioned residence. He is the owner of a triplex apartment complex in which one of the units is occupied by a tenant. He is a member of a local Jaycee chapter in Fort Myers, Florida, and a member of a volleyball team in Fort Myers. The applicant also plays on a semiprofessional football team in Fort Myers, Florida. The Petitioner has invested in certain real estate which is a ten-acre tract approximately fifteen (15) miles east of East Fort Myers, Florida, in Lee County, Florida, located on Highway No. 82. This is the site of the business, Station #7, intended by the Petitioner to be a convenience store. It is the establishment for which the Petitioner has requested a new Series 2-APS beverages license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application made by the Petitioner, Wilbur Gloster, to have a new Series 2-APS beverage license issued in his behalf, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur Gloster 3303 Armstrong Court Fort Myers, Florida 33901 James Watson, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. L. Stout Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Post Office Drawer 2306 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
