Findings Of Fact Respondent, Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-255, Series 12, RT, which licensed premises is located at Seminole Greyhound Park, a greyhound racing facility in Casselberry, Florida. The officers of this corporation who are accused of filing false personal questionnaires with Petitioner are Paul Dervaes, Jack Demetree, William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick. Paul Dervaes and William Demetree also filed a certificate of incumbency and stock ownership which is also alleged to have been false. The principal issue concerns the involvement of John Fountain in the affairs of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. Fountain is a convicted felon who was adjudicated guilty of bookmaking in the Jacksonville Federal District Court in October, 1972. The principal parties to this matter, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick knew from the outset that John Fountain was a convicted felon ineligible for licensing in this state under either the pari- mutuel or beverage laws. John Fountain conceived the idea of acquiring Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., a money-losing harness racing facility, and obtaining necessary legislation to convert the facility to greyhound racing. Fountain first brought this idea to his long-term friends and business associates, Jack and William Demetree, in the mid to late 1970's. Fountain also initiated the involvement of another longtime friend, Paul Dervaes, as President of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. When the enterprise was short of cash in late 1978 and early 1979, Fountain made successive loans of $152,000 and $169,499.82 to the corporation through Paul Dervaes for use in converting and operating Seminole Park. When the necessary legislation was passed to convert to a greyhound facility, John Fountain, for several months, worked long hours without any salary as head of the physical conversion project for the Demetrees. Fountain originated the Super 8 betting feature at Seminole Park, one of the cornerstones of the track's promotion and publicity endeavors. Fountain also, after the conversion was complete and the facility was opened for business, authorized complimentary meals and drinks at the licensed premises at Seminole Park and authorized petty cash disbursements for a wedding present for a newspaper reporter and the distribution of gasoline without charge from Seminole Greyhound Park's fuel tanks. On March 31, 1980, Paul Dervaes, who at the time held 53 percent of the outstanding stock of Seminole Greyhound Park, sent a memo to William Demetree and sought to extricate himself from a managerial position at the track on the basis that the Demetrees appeared not to be satisfied with his managerial abilities. In this memo, Dervaes identified himself as a minority stockholder of the enterprise, despite his then ownership of a majority of 53 percent of the shares of stock. Respondent has sought to explain such incongruity by candidly admitting that Dervaes was fronting for John Fountain as to 43 shares or 43 percent of the stock in Seminole Park. As this time, Ernest Drosdick, who had for years handled all legal affairs for Seminole Park as well as for William Demetree, advised Dervaes and Jack and William Demetree that the loans to Seminole from John Fountain through Paul Dervaes had to be repaid so that the involvement of Fountain could be terminated. Drosdick's advice was predicated on Fountain's felony conviction and he noted that Fountain's continued involvement in such manner would be violative of the pari-mutuel and beverage licensing laws. The corporation thereupon obtained $321,499.82 in early April of 1980, such sum being the total of the principal but not interest due on the $152,000 and $169.499.82 loans made from John Fountain to Seminole Park through Paul Dervaes. Drosdick's advice was not consistently applied, however, with regard to recalling the loans from John Fountain. The $321,499.82 was paid by check to Paul Dervaes on April 1, 1980, which Dervaes deposited in his bank account. William Demetree then asked Dervaes if $160,000 of the funds just paid him could be borrowed back from Fountain despite Drosdick's advice against such loans. The re-loan was agreeable with Fountain and on April 9, 1980, Dervaes wrote a check in the amount of $160,000 back to Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, and on April 21, repaid the remaining $161,499.82 to Fountain. The $160,000 loan was reflected in an April 9, 1980, note signed by William Demetree as Chairman of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. It was also acknowledged by William Demetree that he knew the money was coming from John Fountain. It is this loan, which was repaid as to principal only in November of 1980, that was not reflected on the personal questionnaires of each of the principal parties. At the time the April 9, 1980, $160,000 loan was made by Fountain to Seminole Park through Dervaes, all of the principal parties, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick, knew that John Fountain was a convicted felon and knew that his involvement through loans would be impermissible under pari-mutuel and beverage licensing statutes. It was established that the $160,000 loan was not listed on the personal questionnaires filled out in July of 1980, by each of the aforementioned individuals despite the clearly expressed directive of such questionnaire forms, which states: List the total amount and sources of money you personally are investing in the proposed operation. Also, list any persons, corporations, partnerships, banks, and mortgage companies who have or will invest or lend money in the proposed operation. Immediately prior to the applicant's signature line on the personal questionnaire form is the following statement: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statute 837.06 that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made. Immediately under the signature line is a boxed-in passage entitled "WARNING" with the word "warning" capitalized and underlined and the following: Read carefully, this instrument is a sworn document. False answers could result in criminal prosecution, subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The principal parties seek to excuse their failure to include the Fountain loan on their personal questionnaires by claiming that Drosdick, who is now deceased, was unaware of the $160,000 loan, that he filled out the questionnaires for them and that they merely signed them under oath and attested to their veracity without reading them. This testimony is not credible in view of the material, self-serving omission made on these questionnaires. Therefore, Respondent's agents, who are experienced businessmen, must be held responsible for their sworn statements. The principals have also sought to excuse their conduct on the basis that any matters which transpired between John Fountain and Paul Dervaes in connection with the loan were personal matters between Dervaes and Fountain and thus immaterial to the corporation. However, this theory avoids recognizing that personal questionnaires were submitted by four individuals and not by the corporate entity. It was established that each of the four individuals had knowledge of the $160,000 loan in question and thus were required to list such loan on their personal questionnaires. It was Fountain who conceived the idea of conversion, who supplied the capital necessary to effectuate the conversion, who without salary headed the physical conversion of the facility and who after the opening of the track authorized the expenditure of funds and the giving of certain gratuities at the track. Fountain was clearly and intimately involved with the overall success of the track. Indeed, the original loans in the amount of $152,000 and $169,499.82 from Fountain called for the payment of 10 percent interest and the $160,000 loan called for the payment of 15 percent interest, none of which has ever been paid. Such interest, as of September 30, 1982, had accrued in the amount of $15;173. Dervaes acknowledged that such interest was but a "paper transaction" in that the principal parties and Fountain all knew and agreed that Fountain would not be paid until such time as the track paid Dervaes the interest. Consequently, Fountain has held with the full knowledge of all the principal parties, an impermissible pecuniary interest in the licensed facility which continues to the present time. The Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership submitted as part of the beverage license application process was likewise incorrect. It reflected Jack and William Demetree as 50 percent each owners of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. when, in fact, the separate corporate entity Seminole Greyhound Park, was the sole stockholder of this corporation. Such document was signed by William Demetree and certified as being true and correct by Paul Dervaes under oath. William Demetree and Paul Dervaes attempt to place the blame on Drosdick for improperly preparing the document. However, they signed this document and cannot avoid responsibility for their sworn statements.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 69-255. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven A. Werber, Esquire 2000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Lee Howell (Howell), holds alcoholic beverage license number 46-01252, Series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 2712 Towles Street, Fort Myers, Florida, known as Mr. B's Lounge. Violation of Local Ordinance Lee County Ordinance 76-9, as amended by Ordinance 79-1, provides in pertinent part: All places or establishments within the unincorporated area of the county and lawfully licensed by the State Beverage Department of Florida, may sell or serve, or permit to be sold, served or consumed, any type of alcoholic beverage of any kind whatsoever for consumption both on or off the premises only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. of the following morning every day of the week, including Sundays. Howell was cited on or about July 1, 1989, for allegedly violating this "hours of sale" ordinance, but he was aquitted in August, 1989. In 1990, Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) Deputy James Nygaard warned Howell a half dozen times not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about December 28, 1990, Nygaard cited Howell for allegedly violating the ordinance by allowing a patron to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises after hours. Howell was tried and acquitted because it was not proven that the patron was drinking an alcoholic beverage. After successive reassignments to another patrol zone and to work as a detective, Nygaard was reassigned to patrol the East Zone in January, 1995. Beginning in January, 1995, Nygaard warned Howell twice not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about March 11, 1995, Nygaard cited Howell for violating the ordinance. Howell denied the charges, which still were pending in criminal court at the time of the final hearing. Nygaard testified that, this time (in contrast to the December, 1990, charge), he retained a sample of the contents of the container out of which the patron was drinking after 2 p.m. He testified that the sample was tested and found to be an alcoholic beverage. But the evidence shed no light on the extent of Howell's responsibility for the violation (e.g., how long after 2 p.m. the violation occurred, whether the violation was flagrant, whether Howell was even on the premises at the time of the violation or, if not, how diligent he was in training his employees on how to prevent violations of the "hours of sale" ordinance.) Howell denied that he sells or serves or allows alcoholic beverages to be served, sold or consumed in violation of the ordinance. Mr. B's remains open after 2 a.m. and patrons dance and listen to music, but Howell testified that they are not allowed to drink alcohol in the lounge after 2 a.m. Towles Street Near Mr. B's Mr. B's Lounge is in a section of Fort Myers, Florida, where in recent years violent crime increasingly has become an undeniably serious problem to area residents and the LCSO, which is the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. Towles Street is a two-lane road that runs between Edison Avenue and State Road 82 outside the city limits of the City of Fort Myers. During the evening hours, especially on weekends, large numbers of people park cars in the street and congregate in the area. Some of these people patronize Mr. B's, but many more congregate in the street and on both sides of the street up and down Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. A good number of these people drink too much and become noisy and violent. (Not all of the drinking takes place in Mr. B's, and not all of what is drunk comes from Mr. B's. Many of these people buy their alcoholic beverages elsewhere, or bring them from home, and drink their alcoholic beverages outside on and along Towles Street.) Many drive at recklessly high speeds up and down the street (when the streets are passable.) Loud music is played from stereos in car driving up and down the street and parked in the street. Some of these people, drunk or not, come to the area with the intention to engage in crime, violence and other disruptive conduct. More and more carry knives and firearms, or keep them in their cars, and many use or threaten to use their weapons. Assaults and armed robberies are common. The area around and including Mr. B's has become known to those who frequent it as a place to go to "hang out" and be a part of this violent scene. The violence, including stabbings and shootings, has become so prevalent that residents of the area who do not participate in the violence are afraid to leave their homes at night and, even in their homes, they are not completely safe from stray bullets. The violence and reputation for violence on Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's has become like no other place in Lee County. One LCSO deputy testified that he has heard more automatic weapon fire on duty at night on Towles Street than he heard during his entire experience as a member of the United States armed forces. Some deputies testified that, especially on weekends, there often are so many cars parked illegally in Towles Street that deputies patrolling the area or responding to complaints have to park their police vehicles on Edison Avenue or State Road 82 and walk in. They believe that, when they are seen approaching, the people congregating in the vicinity of Mr. B's lock their weapons in cars and that many of them enter Mr. B's to avoid the deputies. On occasion, the crowds of people encountered by LCSO deputies on Towles Street do not disperse so readily. Once, two deputies responding to a call for service in the vicinity of Mr. B's were assaulted before reaching the lounge and received injuries, including a broken jaw, requiring medical attention in the hospital. (Howell assisted the deputies in subduing the assailant.) On another occasion, it took deputies approximately an hour to control and disperse the crowd, during which time another call for LCSO assistance had to go unanswered for half an hour. Some of the incidents on Towles Street occur before 2 a.m., but many occur later, after the LCSO patrols have been reduced to a single shift. With fewer deputies on patrol, the violence on Towles Street becomes an even greater problem for law enforcement. By the time backup arrives in response to calls on Towles Street, practically no deputies remain available to patrol or respond to calls for service in the rest of the zone. The Licensed Premises No sketch of the licensed premises was introduced in evidence. The evidence was that Mr. B's faces Towles Street and that the front door opens onto a front step that is separated from the street by an unpaved strip of grass and dirt about seven feet wide. Until very recently, Mr. B's had only four parking spaces and did not have a parking lot. The precise extent of the licensed premises was not made clear from the evidence. During an inspection of the licensed premises on February 23, 1995, DABT Special Agent Odom recovered 141 spent gun shell casings in the vicinity of Mr. B's, including: seventy-four 74 9mm's; three 38 Specials; sixteen 16 357 Magnums; four 45-caliber; three 30-caliber; three 44 Magnum; one 10mm; 2 25- caliber; and nineteen 12 gauge shotgun shell cases. Some of these spent shell casings were recovered between the front door to Mr. B's and Towles Street. Most were recovered within 15 to 20 feet from the lounge building, but some were recovered as far as 20 yards away, including some that were found all the way across Towles Street on the opposite side of the street. Four were recovered under the cushion of a couch inside Mr. B's, but there was no evidence how they got there and no evidence that they were fired inside Mr. B's. Except for these four, it was not proven that any of the spent shell casings actually were recovered from the licensed premises themselves. From February, 1991, through October, 1994, there have been 135 calls for LCSO service arising out of incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the calls reported finding lost property or suspicious persons or were for the purpose of reporting some other information to the LCSO. Many of the calls were for relatively minor offenses, such as disturbances, trespassing, vandalism, nuisances, car accidents and highway obstruction. But many were for more serious crimes such as assaults, use or display of firearms, burglaries and robberies. Although many of these calls were placed from a telephone at Mr. B's, the evidence was not clear which, if any, of the incidents instigating calls actually occurred at Mr. B's. It seems clear that the police records use a reference to "Mr. B's" as as short hand way of describing Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's constituted violent crimes. Since 1988, there have been: two murders; four attempted murders; 11 batteries with a firearm; two batteries with a knife; one sexual battery or attempted rape; one shooting into a vehicle; one robbery with a firearm; and two batteries with a dangerous weapon. Most of these crimes occurred outside of Mr. B's, and the evidence did not prove that they occurred on the licensed premises, or how close to the licensed premises they occurred. One incident that clearly occurred on the licensed premises was a fight that broke out during the early morning hours of February 12, 1995. One person was hit on the head with a claw hammer, and another was stabbed with a knife. After some of the participants left Mr. B's, fighting continued outside on the street. Someone telephoned the LCSO, and when deputies arrived, they witnessed four men kicking another who was lying on the ground behind a car, while approximately fifty other people stood watching. As the deputies approached, a man with a sawed-off shotgun walked up to the man lying on the ground and shot him in the leg. It was not clear from the evidence whether any of the people involved in the incident outside on the street had been patrons of Mr. B's. On or about August 3, 1993, the LCSO investigated an incident in which a patron of Mr. B's was shot while walking out the door of Mr. B's. The victim did not know who shot him or where the shot came from. On or about June 7, 1994, the LCSO investigated an incident involving an alleged sexual battery or attempted rape that occurred in the restroom at Mr. B's. The alleged victim in that case withdrew her complaint, and the case was closed. One LCSO deputy testified that he has received several telephone calls from a pay phone down the street at Edison Avenue reporting assaults and other crimes that allegedly occurred inside Mr. B's and that the victim reportedly was afraid to place the call to the police while still at Mr. B's (for fear of further assault.) But there was no specific evidence about any of these alleged crimes. Although some local residents blamed Mr. B's for the loud music heard in the neighborhood, especially on weekend nights, it was not clear whether the loud music being heard by the local residents actually is coming from Mr. B's, as opposed to being played from car stereos on the streets. The Respondent's Responsibility for the Violence and Noise It was not proven that Howell does anything to condone violence and noise in or around Mr. B's Lounge or that he is protecting criminals from apprehension by the LCSO. To the contrary, almost all of the crime reports to the LCSO from 2712 Towles Street were placed by Howell himself or his employees. Not only has Howell telephoned the police for assistance on many occasions, he also has put himself at risk of physical harm by helping law enforcement officers subdue violent subjects in and around the premises. In addition, Howell employs a bouncer who uses a metal detector to try to insure that no weapons are brought into Mr. B's and denies entrance to certain people known to cause problems. (Surprisingly, given the kind of people who congregate on Towles Street, there also was no evidence sufficient to support a finding of illegal drug use in or about the licensed premises.) One LCSO sergeant recalled an occasion when he confronted Howell about problems in and around Mr. B's and, in the sergeant's opinion, Howell treated him rudely. Howell does not recall the incident. No other law enforcement officer testified to any occasion when Howell was anything but cooperative with law enforcement. There was no evidence that the DABT counseled Howell on measures to take to reduce violence on his licensed premises. For example, the DABT could have required the Respondent to supervise and control the entire licensed premises, including both the building and grounds (including parking lot). The Respondent also could have been required to fully cooperate with law enforcement in its efforts to control crime in the area, including allowing LCSO complete access to the licensed premises. See Section 562.41(5), Fla. Stat. (1993). Instead, the evidence was that the LCSO complained to the DABT about Mr. B's on or about February 20, 1995, that the DABT inspected the premises on February 23, 1995, and that the DABT then initiated the proceedings that led to the issuance of the Emergency Suspension Order on or about March 16, 1995. Since Mr. B's has been under the Emergency Suspension Order, there have been markedly fewer problems for law enforcement and law-abiding residents in the area. The people who had been congregating near Mr. B's and causing problems either have found somewhere else to congregate or have dispersed for the time being. Mr. B's apparently attracted and served as a focal point for these people. It seems that suspending the Respondent's license has had a positive effect on the level of crime in the immediate vicinity. (However, some law enforcement officers seemed to support Howell's opinion that the people causing the problems near Mr. B's eventually will find another place to hang out and cause problems.) Clearly, the LCSO and many of the local residents would like to see Mr. B's closed permanently. But the reduction in violence and loitering after the Respondent's beverage license was suspended does not, in itself, prove that the Respondent was culpably responsible for violence and loitering that occurred while the licensed premises were open and operating. Howell operates a package store, not far from Mr. B's but within the city limits of Fort Myers, and near another lounge. City police regularly patrol the area, and it has relatively few of the problems experienced on Towles Street. A more frequent and visible law enforcement presence on Towles Street also would reduce violence and disturbances there. Five to ten years ago, Mr. B's operated in the same location with fewer problems. In those earlier years, LCSO patrolled the area more frequently. In those days, parking laws were enforced more consistently, and LCSO patrol cars could drive down Towles Street without difficulty. When loiterers were encountered in the street, LCSO required them to either go inside Mr. B's or go home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), enter a final order: (1) dismissing the charges in the Notice to Show Cause against the Respondent, Edward Lee Howell; and (2) also dismissing the Notice to Show Cause seeking to impair the licensed location owned by the Respondent, William A. Bell. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1403 and 95-1404 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the reputation attached to licensed premises actually applies not only to the licensed premises but also to Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (Many of the 176 calls on DABT Ex. 3 were not made from Mr. B's.) Second and third sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it only was proven that a few of the violent acts actually were committed on the licensed premises.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (One of the questions for determination in this case is the extent of Howell's "affirmative duty.") Rejected as not proven that the violent acts were committed by patrons or, if they were patrons, that they were committed on the licensed premises. Otherwise, the first sentence is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, in the public mind, "Mr. B's" describes not just the licensed premises but also Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven that the initial service call reported the shooting of a patron. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the incidents described in the second sentence occurred during the investigation. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the 141 shell casings were recovered in the Respondent's "parking lot." (They were recovered from the immediate vicinity of Mr. B's, starting from the side of the building and extending for up to approximately 40 yards away, and including on the opposite side of Towles Street across from the licensed premises. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Nygaard warned Howell several times in 1990 before arresting him. Howell was tried and acquitted on a judge's ruling that it was not proven that the patron was drinking alcoholic beverages after hours. After Nygaard was reassigned to the East Zone in January, 1995, he again arrested Howell on similar charges, which Howell denies and which are still pending.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Howell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Howell wrote a letter from which findings arguably have been proposed, as indicated.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the crimes described in the evidence did not "in the vicinity of" Mr. B's. Accepted that the Respondent recently added a parking lot and incorporated to the extent necessary. Accepted that, if they cooperate, the Respondent and LCSO can solve some of the problems, and incorporated to the extent necessary. Bell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Bell also wrote a letter. Much of the letter is argument but findings arguably also have been proposed, as indicated. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs of Bell's letter are treated as consecutive, separate proposed findings.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as argument and as not supported by any evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as argument and as conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated that Howell called LCSO frequently to report crime. Rejected as not proven that none of the incidents involved Mr. B's, that all involved "just the neighborhood"; accepted and incorporated that many of the calls involved incidents occurring off the licensed premises. The rest is rejected as argument and as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the record that most of the alcoholic beverages drunk by people hanging around in Towles Street are from sources other than Mr. B's; accepted and incorporated that much is, and that all the liquor is. (Mr. B's has a Series 2-COP license.) Rejected as argument, as subordinate and unnecessary, and as unsupported by any evidence. Accepted and incorporated that LCSO has reduced patrols in the area, in part due to budgetary constraints but also in part due to the illegally parked cars that block Towles Street, and that Howell places many of the telephone calls reporting crime in the area. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence, in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that reduced police presence in areas like Towles Street increases crime. Otherwise, rejected as argument, as subordinate and as unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the DABT did not prove lack of due diligence. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. In part, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that only one of the violent crimes was reported to have originated in Mr. B's.) (See Findings of Fact 19 and 20.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated in part. In part, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the wounds were not received on the licensed premises. Otherwise, rejected as cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that the evidence did not clearly identify either the victim or the assailant as being patrons. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that Towles Street presents a difficult police problem and that increased patrols and manpower could help. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence (the nine-block area), in part as argument, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that many people congregate in the streets and that policing them is made difficult by the congestion. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. 17.-18. Cumulative. Rejected that Tamayo's statement was naive. Accepted and incorporated that the problem could move elsewhere if Mr. B's were closed. Otherwise, argument, subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or argument. However, Bell does not seem to acknowledge the serious problems faced by law enforcement in the Towles Street. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that no problems occur before 2 a.m. Also, subordinate, unnecessary, and argument. 22.-23. Argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Edward Lee Howell 1348 Brook Hill Drive Ft. Myers, Florida 33916 William A. Bell 19450 Tammy Lane Ft. Myers, Florida 33917 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about January 22, 1992, in DBR Case No. TA-39-91-0555. The Notice to Show Cause alleges that the Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., d/b/a Mako's Bay Club, through its employees, sold alcoholic beverages to minors on November 6, 1991, in violation of Sections 562.11(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). The Respondent denies the charges and also asserts mitigating circumstances and the Florida Responsible Vendor Act defense under Section 561.706, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., operates several establishments known as Mako's Bay Club in Pinellas County, Florida. All are licensed for consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. All are relatively large establishments that feature multiple bars and dancing. All cater to a relatively young clientele. All stress strict compliance with the Beverage Law, including the prohibition against sales to minors, and all employees receive training approved by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which includes training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees receive this training either before they begin working or within approximately a month of beginning work. In addition, the management of the establishments hold periodic meetings that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. On or about January 23, 1991, the Respondent opened a Mako's Bay Club at 901 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida, under alcoholic beverage license number 39-03295, Series 4-COP. Before the establishment opened for business, all employees received training approved by the Department under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which included training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees have received this training either before beginning work or within approximately a month of beginning work. Generally, new employees are not permitted to serve alcoholic beverages until completing this training, except under supervision. In addition, the management holds monthly meetings with all staff that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. 1/ The Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, at least, allows underage clientele (18 years old and up) to enter the premises on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On these nights, as on all others, clientele who appear to be relatively young are "carded" at the entrance. If they are under 21, the back of their right hand is marked in permanent ink with a large "X". If they are 21 or over, they are given a tight-fitting band to wear around their wrist. Bartenders and servers know they can only serve someone with the wrist band and without the "X" mark. If a customer has neither, and appears to be possibly under 21, the bartender or waitress is to ask to see proof of age. The bar's bouncers circulate during the evening and are alert to underage drinking, loose wrist bands, and underaged clientele in the company of authorized drinkers having more than one drink in front of them. Although the Department has investigated complaints concerning underage sales at establishments operated by the Respondent, prior to November 6, 1991, the Department never made a case of selling to minors against any establishment operated by the Respondent, and the Department has considered the Respondent to be in compliance with the Beverage Law prohibiting sales to minors. In response to complaints of underage drinking in the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, the Department conducted an investigation that included sending undercover underage operatives (aides) into the establishment under the supervision of Department special agents. The aides are selected from among applicants who are college students 18 to 19 years old and who look their age. Often, they aspire to careers in law enforcement. They are instructed to carry correct identification, not to dress to appear older than they are, not to try to deceive the management and employees of the establishment they are investigating, and to give their correct age and identification if asked. Following these instructions, they are to enter the premises and see if they can buy a drink. They operate in pairs, and each pair is accompanied by special agent, who keeps them in sight, particularly when they are attempting to make a buy. The investigation of the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa took place on November 6, 1991. Three teams of special agents and aides entered the premises separately between approximately 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. After a short period of orienting themselves and spreading out in the establishment, the aides went to work. One, Asim Brown, a young-looking 18 year-old, ordered a Budweiser beer from a waitress the second time she approached the table where he and 19 year- old Belvin Sanchez were sitting. (Sanchez declined.) The waitress was new and, against normal procedures, was pressed into service before she was completely trained. She did not ask Brown's age or ask to see proof of age. She left, placed Brown's order at a bar, and later returned to the bar to get the beer to serve at their table. Brown paid for the drink. The transaction was observed by Special Agent Powell, who was seated nearby. Sanchez later went to the "front bar" where he ordered a wine cooler while being observed by Special Agent Powell. He put the money on the bar counter while waiting for his drink. The bartender served him and took the money. Brown went to another bar where he ordered another Budweiser beer, this time from a female bartender. She served him, and he paid for the beer. 19-year old Ricky Salgado, who was teamed with Special Agent Hamilton and aide Steve Towe, also ordered a wine cooler at the front bar. He was served and paid for his drink. Special Agent Hamilton observed this transaction. Apparently about this time, the bartender recognized Special Agent Hamilton and spread the word for the staff to be extra careful to be in compliance with the Beverage Law. The next time aide Sanchez tried to buy a wine cooler at the front bar, the bartender escorted him to a manager and had him evicted. When aide Towe tried to buy a drink, he was evicted, too. The female bartender who had sold beer to Brown later evicted both of the other aides, who were 17 year-old females, as well as two other minors, for trying to buy alcoholic beverages. The evictions ended the investigation. Later, the special agents returned to arrest those accused of selling to minors and to serve a Notice to Show Cause on the Respondent. The Respondent attacked the credibility of the Department's special agents and aides, essentially accusing them of fabricating the evidence, primarily on the basis that: (1) the Mako's Bay Club staff knew Special Agent Hamilton was on the premises and was being especially cautious; and (2) Brown could not have been served Budweiser. As to the first point, the evidence was not clear when Special Agent Hamilton was spotted and when all the staff became advised of his presences. As to the second point, the Respondent contends that the waitress from whom Brown and Powell say he purchased the Budweiser beer remembers that she did not serve any Budweiser that night. A bartender testified that she was assigned to his bar and was required by the bar's procedures to place her orders through him. He had $1 Corona specials at his bar, and he contends that it would have been rare for someone to order a Budweiser at his bar, rare enough for him and the waitress to remember it. He also claims to have checked his drink orders on the night in question and to have found no order for Budweiser beer. 2/ But the evidence is clear that the waitress had not completed her training and was working without supervision for the first time. She may not have followed all of the Mako's Bay Club's usual procedures. In addition, the evidence revealed that she was very upset at having been accused of selling to a minor because she was about to join the military and did not want a criminal record to come out of the incident. She had a motive to attempt to defend herself, perhaps by telling untruths about what happened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1992.
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.
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the regulatory agency charged with regulating alcoholic beverages and tobacco. Respondents, 1/ David W. and Mildred N. Romeo, d/b/a The Full Moon Club, are the holders of Alcoholic Beverage License #61-01368, Series 14BC. Respondents' licensed premises is located at 6763 Land O'Lakes Blvd., Land O'Lakes, Florida. Based on a complaint received by the Pasco County Sheriff's office (PCSO), Detective Darren Norris of the PCSO initiated an undercover investigation of Respondents' licensed premises. Detective Norris was assisted by Special Agent Ashley Murray (herein the agents) of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), who was also acting in an undercover capacity. Petitioner notified Respondents by mail that the Division had received complaints concerning lewd or indecent acts taking place in the licensed premises. In response to that notice, Respondent placed a telephone call to Petitioner's agent, George Miller, to discuss ways in which he would not run afoul of the alcoholic and beverage laws in Florida. During the conversation with Agent Miller, Respondent engaged in a discussion with Miller as to the pitfalls of licensees who operated membership clubs as he did. Miller gave certain examples of proscribed conduct and Respondent ended the conversation with the assurance that they were not engaging in unlawful conduct as the warning letter indicated. Detective Norris has been employed with the PCSO for five years and currently holds the rank of corporal. At the time of his investigation, Detective Norris was assigned to the vice and narcotics unit of the PCSO. Agent Murray has been employed with Petitioner for four years. When Detective Norris was assigned to investigate the anonymous complaint concerning Respondent's club (by a Captain of PCSO), he did not receive explicit instructions from his superiors concerning the manner in which the investigation would be conducted or that a certain outcome was expected. On May 28, 1993, Detective Norris entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Detective Norris met with Respondent, Mildred (Nita) Romeo, at the entrance of the licensed premises. Detective Norris inquired as to procedure of becoming a member of the club; whereupon Ms. Romeo advised that he would have to either be a resident of Paradise Lakes, or be a member of the American Sunbather's Association (ASA). On June 18, 1993, the agents entered the licensed premises to continue the undercover investigation. The agents obtained temporary membership cards from the ASA and presented them to Respondent Nita Romeo at the entrance of the club. The agents were provided a membership application prior to admission into the licensed premises, which included affirmations that they were not law enforcement officers on duty; that they were not reporters; that the club was "clothing optional"; that lewd and lascivious behavior was prohibited, and that what happens in the club "stays in the club". Respondents included those affirmations on the application to protect the privacy of the members. The agents completed the application and were accepted as club members. While inside the licensed premises, the agents sat in an area designated for couples only. After being in the licensed premises for a short time, the agents observed a white male, approximately 50 years old, and a white female approximately 35 years old, sitting at a table approximately six feet away. Detective Norris thought that he observed the male pull his penis from his shorts and the female rubbing the penis with her hand. Agent Murray could not see the male's penis, but thought that she saw the female's hand in the male's groin area. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondents did not see this activity. During the same evening, the agents observed a white male standing with two white females in an open area near the hallway to the rest rooms and approximately five feet from their seats. One of the females was wearing a black night dress and the other was dressed in a two-piece lingerie set. The agents observed the two females rubbing each other's bodies with their hands when one of the females knelt in front of the other female and began a movement which simulated placing her tongue on the inside of the female's vagina. This activity took place for several minutes. Agent Murray thought that she observed several unnamed patrons watching this activity as it was ongoing. Respondents did not witness this conduct. During the same evening, the agents were dancing on the dance floor when they observed a white female and white male dancing approximately three to four feet away. The white male was approximately sixty years old and was dressed in red running shorts, and the white female was approximately 35 years old, heavy set, and nude. The agents observed the male place his fingers in an area near the female's vagina. Agent Murray observed the female dancing and squatted in an up and down manner on the hand of the male dancer. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondents did not witness this activity. After the male removed his fingers from the area of the female's vagina, the female knelt in front of the male, pulled his running shorts to his knees, and placed her mouth in close proximity to the male's penis. This activity lasted approximately one minute. Respondents did not witness this conduct. Both officers did not observe Respondents witnessing these activities although Respondents were always present in the premises. Respondent constantly walked around the licensed premises monitoring the patrons. During the evening of June 18, 1993, while the agents were in the licensed premises, Respondent approached the agents and introduced himself. He told the officers that if they saw anyone doing anything lewd in the premises, it was because they wanted to, and that such activity was not allowed by Respondents. On July 10, 1993, at approximately 11:00 p.m., the agents returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation. Both officers observed Respondent Nita Romeo at the entrance and Respondent was walking around inside the licensed premises. While in the licensed premises, the agents observed a white couple dancing on the dance floor. The white male was dressed in a striped blue shirt and blue pants and the white female was dressed in a tan g-string and gold waist chain. The male was observed by the agents fondling the breast of the female with his hand and placing his mouth on the female's breast. The male was then observed moving the "g-string" aside and placing his fingers in the area of the female's vagina. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondents did not observe this conduct. A short time after the above-related conduct, the agents observed a white male sitting at a table next to the dance floor with a white female. The agents were seated approximately seven feet from the couple who were dancing. The agents observed the male remove an ice cube from his drink and rub it over the female's exposed breast. The male was then observed placing the ice cube in his mouth and placing his mouth on the exposed breast of the female. This activity took place briefly and Respondents did not see it. The agents then observed the male, described in the preceding paragraph, pull up the dress of the female and place his fingers in the area close to her vagina. This activity took place briefly and Respondents did not see it. Respondent was not observed by the agents watching any of these activities, although he walked around the licensed premises constantly. Throughout all of these activities, Respondent Nita Romeo was at the front desk with her back turned toward the patrons and she did not have a clear view of what was occurring inside. On July 16, 1993, the agents returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation. While entering the licensed premises, the agents were greeted by Respondent Nita Romeo. While dancing on the dance floor, the agents observed a black male wearing jeans dancing a few feet away from a white female wearing a red "teddie" lingerie set. The agents observed the male place his fingers in the area of the female's vagina. This activity lasted approximately one minute and Respondents did not see it. A short time thereafter, the agents observed a white male with a white female wearing a black "t-back bottom". Both officers observed the male fondle the female's breast and moved the t-back bottom aside and placed his fingers inside the area of the vagina. This activity took place while a song was playing and Respondents did not see it. Respondent was not observed watching this activity, although he was inside the licensed premises. He spoke with the agents and told them that when they felt comfortable, they could join in with the other patrons. On July 23, 1993, the agents returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation. They saw Respondent Nita Romeo at the entrance where they were greeted and Respondent was inside the licensed premises. While inside the licensed premises, the agents observed two patrons sitting at a table on the east side of the dance floor. The female patron was sitting on the lap of the male. Both agents observed the male move aside the t-back bottom and place his fingers inside the area of the female's vagina and fondle her exposed breast with his other hand. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondent did not observe this activity. Shortly after the above described activity, Respondent approached the officer's table and commented that his feet hurt from walking around so much. This is in keeping with Respondent's constant attempt to monitor the premises at all times. On July 24, 1993, at approximately 12:25 a.m., Detective Norris left the licensed premises and signaled for the remaining law enforcement officers, who were waiting outside, to enter the premises. The activity inside the licensed premises, once law enforcement entered, was video taped. Detective Norris confiscated several photographs which were found inside the licensed premises. These photos were mementos and were from other activities from another club unrelated to Respondent's licensed premises here. Although Detective Norris and Agent Murray observed Respondent David Romeo make announcements over the public address system, they denied ever hearing him say the lewd behavior was not allowed inside the licensed premises. Robert Laurie was employed as a disc jockey for Respondents for approximately one year. Part of his assigned duties were to watch the activities in the licensed premises and alert Respondents if he witnessed any problem(s). Laurie observed problems on occasion and notified Respondent whenever he saw anything occurring which he considered to be lewd and/or lascivious. Respondents changed the policy regarding nudity in the licensed premises and since this policy changed, Laurie has observed less problems respecting lewd and lascivious acts inside the licensed premises. Laurie was present on each occasion the officers were in the licensed premises and did not witness six (6) of the incidents testified to by the officers. Laurie related one incident of oral sex taking place which he related to Respondent who immediately stopped it. Laurie has a clear vantage point from his station in the disc jockey booth and he is better able than any other patron to view what goes on inside the premises. Laurie has observed Respondent making announcements banning lewd and lascivious conduct in the licensed premises, which announcements are made, without fail, twice nightly. Stephanie Mitchell has been employed by Respondent in the licensed premises in several capacities although she is not presently employed there. She has heard Respondent talk to new couples concerning the lewd and lascivious rules. She observed Respondent walking around constantly in the licensed premises monitoring the club's activities. Witnesses Mark Mitchell, Dale Workman, Nan La, Darlene Nonn and Grady Lawhorne are all members of the club. All of the above witnesses have observed Respondent constantly moving around inside the licensed premises and policing the club such that lewd and/or lascivious behavior could not occur. Respondent constantly made known, through the public address announcements, that lewd and lascivious behavior was not allowed in the licensed premises. Respondent made the announcements twice nightly and all the above witnesses are desirous of the club remaining open. Nan La observed Respondent throwing members out of the licensed premises for several reasons including those who are too loud or rowdy; those who are too intoxicated, and those who are "too loose with their hands". Darlene Nonn is familiar with pictures which were posted on the wall and confiscated during the raid. She does not consider them to be lewd or indecent. Respondent opened the club with the idea of providing a place where the adult members could go and not be harassed by other patrons. Respondent followed all procedures required to obtain all necessary licenses and wanted to make certain that he "followed the letter of the law" such that he would not run afoul of any beverage laws. In this respect, when Respondent received the notice from Petitioner, he immediately called Agent Miller and inquired as to specifics of the charges which were unspecified. Respondent walks the licensed premises constantly on each evening it is opened for business, and he makes public service announcements, twice nightly, advising members that lewd and lascivious behavior was prohibited. Respondents observed and enforced the rules, as best they could, and maintained an eye on all of the patrons/members while they were in the club. The agents never approached Respondents about any of the activities they reported herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1994.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Dorothy Risby, filed an application to be issued a new Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license. The application was filed on January 28, 1980, and if the license were issued, it would allow for the sale of beer and wine to be consumed at the Petitioner's premises known as the V I P Night Club, located at 922 East Brownlee Street, Starke, Florida. After the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, had received and reviewed the application, it was denied. The basis of the denial was, quoting from the license application denial, "undisclosed interest" and reference was made to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, as the authority for such denial. Specifically, the Respondent is persuaded that Albert Parrish has an "undisclosed interest" in the prospective licensed premises and that in view of this interest the Petitioner is not entitled to receive the beverage license. Albert Parrish was the former holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Respondent, and the licensed premises to which the license pertained was the same premises as contemplated by the present Petitioner. Parrish did business at that location under the name Red Honey until his license was revoked on December 31, 1979. The current Petitioner has known Albert Parrish for a period of ten to twelve years and in the course of that time, Parrish has helped support the children of the Petitioner who presently live at home with her. This support spoken to is financial support. The Petitioner and Albert Parrish have also lived together in that period of time and as recently as February, 1980. The latter statement concerning the living arrangements between the Petitioner and Parrish was ascertained when Beverage Officer Robert W. Cunningham went to the licensed premises in making a pre-licensure inspection in February, 1980, and encountered Albert Parrish on the proposed licensed premises. Parrish indicated that he was just at the licensed premises sleeping following a break-in that had occurred at that location. At the same time he indicated that he was living at Apartment 51 on Brownlee Street, Starke, Florida, which is the residence address given by the Petitioner in her application for licensure. This also was the same residence address that Albert Parrish had put on his beverage license application when he had applied for the beverage license issued to him in the past. In the course of the meeting referred to above, Parrish stated that the utilities for the licensed premises were being paid for by him and that the phone in the licensed premises was primarily for the benefit of the ABC Junk Yard, a business operated by Parrish, which was located at that time behind the prospective licensed premises. The phone located at the licensed premises also rang at the Apartment 51 when calls were made in. At the time of Cunningham's conversation with Parrish, the rent for the licensed premises was being paid month to month and was paid at times by the Petitioner and at other times by Parrish. The most recent rent of August, 1980, was paid by the Petitioner. At the time of the hearing, the utilities for the licensed premises still remained in the name of Albert Parrish, although payment for those utilities was being made by the Petitioner. The telephone remained in the name of Albert Parrish because in the words of the Petitioner, it cost $200.00 to change over the phone from Parrish's name to the Petitioner's name and the Petitioner could not afford to make that change. In the interim, the Petitioner intends to pay for the telephone until such time as she cannot afford to pay and the service charges and at that time she would expect the telephone to be removed for nonpayment. At the time of the hearing, Albert Parrish was no longer in the junk yard business at the licensed premises and was not living with the Petitioner at the Apartment 51 due to the fact that the welfare officials had instructed the Petitioner that if Parrish lived there, the Petitioner could not receive help for her children. At present, the Petitioner does not know the exact residence address of Parrish nor of his future intentions regarding their relationship in which she had been his "girlfriend" in the past. Parrish still gives her $10.00 or $15.00 when he can afford it and when she asks him for the money. The Petitioner presently sells sandwiches and soft drinks at the licensed premises and has an occupational license from Bradford County, Florida, which allows her to do this. This license is in her sole name. Albert Parrish is not involved in the daily operation of this business. It is the intention of the Petitioner to expand the base of her operations to include the sales of alcoholic beverages. In taking over the licensed premises, she intends to continue to pay the month-to-month rent due at the licensed premises. In pursuit of the expansion of her business, Parrish gave the Petitioner certain tables and chairs in the licensed premises to use for her purposes. Parrish was not paid any amount of money for his good will or inventory and no inventory remained to be used by the current Petitioner. The Petitioner receives other income from the licensed premises in the form of a concessions for a "piccolo and pool tables". The average amount of income from those concessions being $65.00 for the piccolo and $80.00 for the pool table, on a weekly basis, of which one-half of the money is paid to the concessionaire of those items in lieu of rentals. Presently, the apartment rent of the Petitioner is paid primarily from funds received from the business, from money provided by the Petitioner's elder sons, and from welfare payments to the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Dorothy Risby's application for a new Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 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 4th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Risby 922 East Brownlee Street Starke, Florida 32091 William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) should take disciplinary action against respondent or its DABT license for the reasons alleged in the notice to show cause?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent 201 West, Inc. d/b/a Central City/Congo Craig's Safari, has held a quota license, No. 11-00259 4COP, authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. On August 23, 1991, Craig Cinque, respondent's sole shareholder and officer, executed on respondent's behalf a consent agreement which petitioner accepted and filed on September 6, 1991, resolving administrative proceedings then pending. The consent agreement provides: "The second and third floors now known as 'Congo Craig's' shall not admit customers under 21 years of age for a period of two years " Underaged Patrons Apprehended At eleven o'clock on a crowded Saturday night, September 7, 1991, five DABT officers entered Congo Craig's to check patrons' ages. DABT and other witnesses agreed that the bar had enough staff demanding proof from patrons of their ages as they entered, and that the lighting was adequate for this purpose. The DABT officers checked a number of already admitted patrons' "ID's" themselves, and found a false one that a 20-year-old woman, Amy L. Bruns, whom they saw drinking draft beer, had used to gain admission. The Maryland driver's license described a woman of its bearer's height and weight, but depicted a blonde, not the brunette the officers accosted. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The next time DABT officers, again a contingent of five, discovered an under age patron at Congo Craig's was on October 12, 1991, another Saturday night when DABT and other witnesses agreed that the bar had enough staff checking patrons' ages as they entered, and that the lighting was adequate. Kim M. Chiappara, then 20 years and eight months old, was sharing a pitcher of draft beer with her older sister and others when she was interrogated by the DABT officers that night. A search of her person turned up no false identification. She was not asked whether she had used any, or borrowed her sister's identification, to get by the bouncers. The next Friday night DABT officers apprehended Dari A. Layne, who was born on October 27, 1972, at Congo Craig's shortly before midnight, as she was consuming a mixed drink. The "very good" counterfeit Pennsylvania driver's license she produced when asked for identification has her photograph, but lacks a holographic state stamp on the obverse and has a photocopied reverse, albeit duly laminated. After midnight on the same foray, DABT officers discovered Kim C. Stampler, three months and a week shy of her 21st birthday, holding a clear plastic cup containing a purple liquid. She denied having false identification, but a DABT officer's search turned some up. Also in the early hours of October 19, 1991, DABT officers arrested Christopher Wisniewski, an apparently intoxicated 16-year-old, whose father, also apparently intoxicated, only reluctantly admitted their relationship. Christopher, who was not asked what or whose identification, if any, he had used to get in, had a valid Florida driver's license on his person. Bar Tender Arrested The personnel that respondent assigned to check patrons identification as they entered did not take their stations until five o'clock evenings, an hour after opening. Aware of this, the DABT dispatched Randy Gordon (a stout, older- looking 19-year-old, who has succeeded two out of three times in efforts of this kind at some ten other establishments) to Congo Craig's. He readily gained admission between four and half past on the afternoon of November 8, 1991, without being asked for identification. The first customer of the evening, Randy asked Eric Frauman (who had agreed at the last minute to fill in for another bartender, and who ordinarily worked evenings when the bouncers, not the bartenders, are responsible for checking customers' identification) for a hamburger and a beer. Although he had been told to "card" everybody, Mr. Frauman neglected to ask young Mr. Gordon for identification. The second customer that evening was Ernest Wilson, the special DABT agent responsible for paying five dollars an hour for Mr. Gordon's services. Mr. Wilson took the beer, and Mr. Gordon, who paid for both, got the hamburger, which he described as very good. Mr. Frauman, a graduate student hoping to work as an educational counselor, was arrested and eventually prosecuted criminally. Precautions Taken Respondent is qualified as a responsible vendor, and was so certified during the time DABT made such certifications. All of the 18 employees respondent relies on for "security," those checking patrons' ages at night as well as the daytime bartenders and servers, are current with regard to the courses, tests and update meetings the responsible vendor program requires. Respondent's managers are current on requirements for managers. At weekly meetings of the managers, underage drinking was a regular topic. A book depicting driver's licenses in various jurisdictions is kept on the premises, and respondent's employees who testified seemed knowledgeable on the subject. Employees responsible for checking patrons' ages are told to require, at least of anybody who looks younger than 45, a driver's license, military identification or a passport. Several repeat customers testified that they had invariably been "carded." Although Congo Craig's can lawfully accommodate no more than 925 persons at any one time, the crowd "turns over" as the night wears on. From 35,000 to 45,000 patrons were on the premises between September 7, 1991, and November 18, 1991. During this period, DABT officers made several visits on which they failed to find a single patron under the age of 21. According to Kim Ehrich, who once worked at Congo Craig's, but now works elsewhere, Congo Craig's is probably the "strictest" bar in Gainesville, and does a more thorough job checking identification than the three other bars where she has worked in Gainesville. Willful Breach A week or so before the party at Congo Craig's on October 3, 1991, Charlotte Olsen, then social chairperson for the Phi Sigma Sigma sorority, told somebody at Congo Craig's that some of the party-goers would be under 21 years of age. She offered the sorority's wrist bands to demarcate those old enough to drink legally, but Congo Craig's used its own instead. Mr. Cinque was aware that underaged persons were expected to attend the party scheduled for the second and third floors, and decided to allow it, despite the consent agreement, in order to preserve "good will." About half of the 50 to 60 people at the party were under 21 years of age. He added staff, he testified, in an effort to stymie drinking by underaged attendees. This effort proved dramatically unsuccessful. Past Problems DABT established (in aggravation of penalty only) that respondent has a long history of problems of the kind proven in this case, dating to when respondent's father owned the establishment. When Mr. Cinque worked as a manager, before he became the owner, DABT issued some ten orders to show cause alleging beverage law violations, most of which respondent admitted. Since the younger Mr. Cinque assumed ownership, DABT has filed eight additional orders to show cause, the first seven of which were consolidated and disposed of by the consent agreement accepted by DABT on September 6, 1991.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspend respondent's license for ten (10) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34- 46, 50, 53-56 and 58 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 22 and 23, it is not that easy to make out the eye color of the woman depicted on the license. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 26, Ms. Chiappara did not testify at hearing; it is not clear what sworn statement is meant. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence suggested that she used the counterfeit license to gain entry. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 30 and 33, the method of entry was not proven, but there was speculation. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 32, she was drinking a purple beverage. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 47, she so testified. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 48, 49 and 59 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact No. 51 and 52 have been rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 57, the number of allegations is immaterial. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-10 and 14-17 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, Mr. Frauman did not usually work the day shift. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, time constraints do not account for the failure to honor the consent order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is properly a proposed conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 S. W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Donald D. Conn General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is the state agency charged with regulating the alcohol beverage and tobacco laws in Florida. Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall's Champagne Lounge, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-00231, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as McCall's Champagne Lounge which is located at 618 22nd Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. On or about February 11, 1992, Officer T. Brockman of the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) met with Respondent as licensee to discuss illegal activities which were ongoing in and around his licensed premises. Officer Brockman notified Respondent that controlled substances were being sold in and about the licensed premises and that underaged persons were being permitted to consume alcoholic beverages. Respondent was also notified of other illegal activities including weapons and firearms violations which were occurring on Friday and Saturday nights. On or about July 26, 1992, the Division's Special Agent, Cummings and other undercover law enforcement agents went to Respondent's premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, Cummings met a patron known as "Andy Griffin" regarding the purchase of marijuana. As a result of that meeting, Special Agent Cummings handed Andy Griffin $10.00 in exchange for a small plastic bag containing marijuana. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. At the time, two employees were located a few feet away from the site where the marijuana was delivered. At the time, several patrons were also openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On or about July 31, 1992, Cummings again reentered the licensed premises with other undercover law enforcement agents in furtherance of their investigation. While inside the premises, Special Agent Cummings met with an unknown patron regarding the purchase of "crack" cocaine. Subsequently Special Agent Cummings handed the unknown patron $10.00 in exchange for a small quantity of a substance which was analyzed and found to be cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At the time, several patrons inside the premises were openly smoking marijuana in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On August 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, Special Agent Cummings and other law enforcement agents reentered the licensed premises as part of their ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, on each ocassion except August 8, Special Agent Cummings purchased narcotics for $10.00. On each occasion the substance purchased by Special Agent Cummings was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. During the August 8, 1992 visit by Special Agent Cummings and the other law enforcement agents, several patrons were observed openly consuming marijuana in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At no time did Respondent or his employees make efforts to prevent that activity from occurring inside the licensed premises. On each occasion while in the premises, Special Agent Cummings observed several patrons openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of employees. At the outset of the narcotics investigation, Officer Tim Brockman met with Respondent and advised him that he was a community police officer who was on call and would be walking the "beat" in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that he was there to improve the quality of life and that he would be in contact with community leaders to try to get a handle on the extensive criminal activity which appeared to be ongoing in and around the licensed premises. As part of their efforts, Officer Brockman tried to develop a crime watch as the community residents felt threatened by the extensive criminal activity ongoing in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman advised Respondent that their primary goal would be to try to rid the area of drug sales. Respondent was specifically advised of the extensive drug activities that were ongoing both inside and outside of the licensed premises. Respondent's cooperation and assistance was requested by Officer Brockman and be agreed to assist. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that loitering was a problem outside the building and that alcoholic sales were being made in the building to minors. Finally, Officer Brockman told Respondent that he had observed patrons purchasing alcoholic beverages in the bar and who would later bring the open containers outside into the parking areas in and around the building in apparent violations of the local ordinances. Officer Brockman analyzed the phone calls which had been logged through the St. Petersburg Police Departments switchboard from the lounge and for law enforcement assistance in that area. The number of calls to Respondent's lounge greatly exceed the number of calls for law enforcement assistance in other areas of the City. Josephine McCall, Respondent's wife, denies that she ever saw drugs in the licensed premises. Ms. McCall maintains that Respondent would "come home sick as he could not stand the smell of marijuana." Thomas E. Hines, is a patron who occasionally frequents the bar during the early evening hours. During the times that he has frequented the club, he has not witnessed ellicit drugs being sold in the area nor would he recognize "reefer" if he saw it. Kathy Burgess has been a barmaid at Respondent's lounge in excess of thirteen years. Ms. Burgess contends that Respondent did not allow drug sales to occur and that if such sales were made, she told employees to "get them out of the premises." Bonny Bostick serves as a janitor at Respondent's lounge and works on the admissions door on Friday and Saturday nights. Bostick recalls having to get Respondent to curtail drug activities on four or five occasions. 0/ To the extent that the testimony of Respondent and witnesses J. McCall, T. Hines, K. Burgess and B. Bostick is in conflict with that of Officers Cummings and Brockman, their testimony is not credible. The testimony of Officers Cummings and Brockman is more credible and is more worthy of belief as they had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. At all times throughout the investigation, Respondent was in the licensed premises while the illegal activities referred to herein were taking place. Respondent's employees either ignored or overlooked illegal activities as it was occurring inside the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order prevailing that Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall Champagne Lounge, license number 62-00231, series 2-COP be revoked. It is further recommended that this location be deemed ineligible for having an alcoholic beverage license issued for the maximum period allowable under the alcoholic beverage law. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 39-651, series 4-COP, which applies to its business known as Library Lounge, located at 10924 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Beverage Officer Lloyd entered Respondent's licensed premises on August 7, 1980, to conduct an undercover investigation. He was approached by two dancers in bikini costumes who introduced themselves as Billy Joe (or B.J.) and Brenda. Billy Joe twice asked him to buy her drinks, which he did (Counts 1 and 2). He also purchased a drink for Brenda at her request (no charge). Lloyd saw Billy Joe and Brenda perform their dances on a raised stage. Lloyd returned to the licensed premises on August 8, 1980, and was again approached by the dancer Billy Joe, who asked him to buy her a drink. Lloyd purchased the drink as requested (Count 4). Lloyd returned to the licensed premises on October 14, 1980, where he was approached by dancers in bikini costumes who introduced themselves as Deanna and Margie. They asked him to buy drinks, and Lloyd purchased two drinks for each of these dancers (Counts 8, 13, 14, 15). He also observed them performing on the stage. Beverage Officer Jones entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on August 7, 1980. He was approached by the dancer, Brenda, who asked him to purchase her a drink. Jones purchased the drink as requested (Count 3). He observed Brenda dance on the stage while attired in a bikini costume. Jones entered the licensed premises on October 14, 1980, in an undercover capacity and was approached by the dancer, Margie. Jones purchased three drinks for Margie at her request (Counts 10 and 12). She stated that the dancers were paid one dollar for each drink purchased on their behalf by a customer. Beverage Officer Kiker entered the licensed premises on August 7, 1980, in an undercover capacity. He was approached by the dancer, Brenda, who twice asked him to buy drinks. Kiker purchased the drinks as requested (no charge). He observed Brenda dance on stage. She was attired in a two piece G-string costume. Kiker entered the licensed premises on October 14, 1980, in an undercover capacity. The dancers, Deanna and Margie, asked him to buy them drinks. He purchased the drinks as requested (Counts 6 and 11). He also purchased a drink for Deanna in response to her request made while she was dancing on stage for somebody to buy her a drink (Count 7). Kiker identified Deanna as Deanna Hill and Margie as Margaret San Felize at their arrest on October 24, 1980. On October 14, 1980 Kiker had paid Tammy Yates, the bartender for Deanna's drink and observed that she noted the transaction on a pad by the cash register. He further observed that the pad had four names on it. At the October 24 arrest, Tammy advised Kiker that she kept a tally of the drinks purchased for the dancers.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of charges contained in Counts 1 through 4, 6 through 8, and 10 through 15 of the Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1982.
