Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Conrad F. and Shirley Bouchard, are holders of beverage license number 39-790, series number 2APS. This license is issued to the licensed premises, Brandon Beverage Center, located at 118 Margaret Street, Brandon, Florida. The license was obtained by the Respondents by transfer on August 21, 1981. The licensed premises is a drive-through store which sells beer and wine, milk, bread, and other grocery items. Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr., is one of the owners and licensees and is also the manager of the store. His regular working hours are from 8:30 or 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. He occasionally is required to work evenings and weekends. Conrad F. Bouchard, Jr., also known as Butch, is the son of the Respondents and worked nights at the licensed premises. On April 1, 1982, the Respondent was given a written warning from Beverage Officer George Miller that there had been complaints about sales of alcoholic beverages to minors at the licensed premises. On October 27, 1982, an employee of Respondent, named Scott Steinberg, was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. As a result of this, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages by Notice to Show Cause brought formal administrative charges against the Respondents. The charges against the Respondents resulted in a stipulation and settlement with the Respondents agreeing to pay a $300 fine. On July 22, 1983, Scott Steinberg was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to minors and formal administrative charges were brought against the Respondents as a result of the alleged sales to minors. These charges are still pending. On the evening of October 11, 1983, at approximately 9:00 P.M., Detectives Michael Ray and Mark Olive of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises to investigate complaints relating to the sale of drugs on the licensed premises. They were accompanied by a confidential informant. Upon arriving at the licensed premises, Butch Bouchard approached the vehicle and the confidential informant asked if he had any marijuana they could purchase. Butch Bouchard responded that he did. Scott Steinberg, another employee working at the licensed premises, approached the vehicle and took $26 from Detective Ray as payment for the marijuana. Butch Bouchard then returned to the vehicle holding a cigarette carton with the top torn off. He handed the carton to the confidential informant who in turn handed it to Detective Ray. The carton contained a baggie containing approximately five grams of marijuana (cannabis), a controlled substance under Florida Statute 893.13 (1981). On October 13, 1983, at approximately 9:10 P.M., Detectives Ray and Olive returned to the licensed premises. As they stopped their vehicle inside the drive-through store, Butch Bouchard approached Detective Ray. Ray asked Butch Bouchard if they could purchase some marijuana. Bouchard looked in the backseat of the vehicle and saw the confidential informant and then walked over to the office area. Bouchard then returned with a paper bag which he handed to Detective Ray. Detective Ray handed $25, the agreed price of the marijuana, to Bouchard. The paper bag contained a clear plastic baggie filled with marijuana. On this particular evening, Butch Bouchard was the only employee on the licensed premises. In the early evening of October 17, 1983, Detective Ray, accompanied by Detective Tony Roper, drove into the licensed premises. Butch Bouchard approached the vehicle and Detective Ray asked if he could purchase some marijuana. Butch Bouchard then asked Detective Ray to get out of his vehicle and select which bag he wanted. Butch Bouchard had several bags in his hand and asked Detective Ray to look at them. Detective Ray selected one bag and purchased it from Butch Bouchard. The bag contained marijuana. On October 20, 1983, at approximately 9:00 P.M. Detectives Ray and Roper returned to the licensed premises. Officer Ray purchased a plastic baggie of marijuana from Butch Bouchard for $25. On November 10, 1983, Detective Roper and Detective Mathai, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises and asked to buy a bag of marijuana from Butch Bouchard. Butch said he did not have any and asked them to come back later. When the detectives returned the Beverage Center was closed and Butch Bouchard was in the parking lot. Butch came over to the Detectives' car and sold them a plastic baggie of marijuana. On November 17, 1983, Detectives Geoffry Dean Mathai and John Zdanwic of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises. On a prior occasion, Detective Mathai had gone with Detective Tony Roper to the licensed premises and had talked with Butch Bouchard about marijuana. On this evening, Detective Mathai asked Butch Bouchard if he remembered Tony and after a short conversation Mathai asked Butch if he could buy some marijuana. Butch said yes and asked how many bags. Detective Mathai told him they wanted two bags. Butch left the car, went into the office and returned a couple of minutes later with a Benson & Hedges cigarette carton. He handed the carton to Detective Mathai and Detective Mathai and Detective Zdanwic each handed him cash. The two detectives also had ordered a beer each and received the beer and change from Butch Bouchard. The cigarette carton contained two plastic baggies of marijuana. Detectives Mark Olive and Swann also made a purchase of marijuana at the licensed premises on the evening of November 17, 1983. The two detectives drove into the licensed premises and asked Butch Bouchard if they could purchase a $25 bag of marijuana and asked if he had that much. Butch responded yes and walked to the office area and then came back with a cigarette carton which he handed to Detective Olive. The carton contained a plastic baggie of marijuana. Butch Bouchard was paid $25 for the bag of marijuana. The only employees observed on the licensed premises this night were Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg. On the evening of November 22, 1983, Detective Ray and several other officers went to the licensed premises to serve a search warrant. When they arrived, Detective Ray spoke to Conrad Bouchard and asked if they could purchase some marijuana. Butch answered yes and went over to the area of the cash register and office area. Detective Ray then got out of his car and walked over to the office where he saw Butch Bouchard crouched down and looking at five bags of marijuana. Detective Ray identified himself as a police officer and Butch then grabbed the bags and ran into the bathroom and tried to flush the marijuana down the toilet. Detective Ray caught Butch before he could flush the toilet. After arresting Butch Bouchard, the officers searched Butch's car and found a pipe and two more plastic baggies of marijuana. When Butch was crouched looking at the bags of marijuana, Scott Steinberg was present in the same area. On each of the evenings that purchases of controlled substances were made at the licensed premises, no employees other than Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg were present at the licensed premises. Neither Butch Bouchard nor Scott Steinberg is a night manager. Both these individuals are merely sales clerks. The only manager for the licensed premises is Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr. Although the normal working hours for Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr., is 8:30 to 4:30 or 5:00 P.M., he occasionally returns to the licensed premises in the evenings to check on things. Mrs. Bouchard also makes a point of stopping by the licensed premises in the evening. Occasionally, Mr. or Mrs. Bouchard would check on the licensed premises without the employees being aware they were observing. Mr. and Mrs. Bouchard had no knowledge of the drug transactions which took place on the licensed premises. Shortly after acquiring the licensed premises, Mr. Bouchard fired several of the previous employees for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. Until the arrest of Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg for drug violations, there was no evidence that any disciplinary action was taken by the licensee against these two individuals for sales to minors on two occasions. Mr. Bouchard had a clear policy against selling alcoholic beverages to minors. He constantly instructed employees to check identification. There was no evidence of instructions or warnings having been given relating to other types of illegal activity. During July and August, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Bouchard took separate vacations in order for one of them to be available to oversee the operation at the licensed premises. The licensed premises enjoys a good reputation in the community as a clean, well-run establishment. The Respondents individually enjoy an excellent reputation in the community as honest, hardworking people.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondents guilty of the violations as set forth above and imposing a civil penalty of $1400 and a suspension of the beverage license for a period of 30 days. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 21st day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, 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 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Danny Hernandez, Esquire 707 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Cesar J. Reyes, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-05034, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Busy Cafeteria Bar (the "premises"), located at 4601 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In November 1993, Special Agent Joe Lopez of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, together with the assistance of a confidential informant (CI), began an undercover investigation of the premises. Such investigation was predicated on information Special Agent Lopez had received from federal authorities which indicated that narcotics were being sold upon the premises. On December 1, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI entered the licensed premises. While inside the premises, the CI met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On the same occasion, Special Agent Lopez met with respondent, and he also purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. 1/ On December 2, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI returned to the licensed premises. While inside the licensed premises, they again met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On December 7, 1993, Special Agent Brian Weiner of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco served respondent with an emergency order suspending his alcoholic beverage license, and placed respondent under arrest for the sale of cocaine. Incident to such arrest, Special Agent Weiner searched respondent's person and discovered six small plastic packages, each containing 1/2 gram of cocaine, in a small box tucked under respondent's waist band.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of the notice to show cause, finding respondent guilty of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice to show cause, and revoking respondent's alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of December 1993.
Findings Of Fact The stock in Bourbon Street Corporation is owned by Richard Stanton and James Urie. These individuals also own several other bars and enterprises in the Dade-Broward area. All of the entertainment corporations are managed by Jane Kruger. One such company, Crazy Jim's Corporation, contracts with dancers to provide entertainment at the various Stanton-Urie enterprises managed by Kruger. Bourbon Street pays Crazy Jim's a fee for providing dancers. The dancers are, in turn, paid on an hourly or shift basis by Crazy Jim's. The bartenders at Bourbon Street are employees of the Bourbon Street Corporation and are in charge when on duty. They are instructed to contact Kane Druger when they have trouble with a dancer or with any facet of the business. In practice, bartenders control dancers to the extent of telling them when to dance, when to mingle with customers, how to conduct themselves, and to leave the premises if they are too "high" to work. The efforts of management to prevent drug use and sale by employees- dancers involve the posting of rules of conduct in the dressing room and inclusion of these rules in employment contracts; the use of polygraph examinations; and occasional premises visits by undercover "spotters." Several employees-dancers have been discharged for drug use. The openness of drug use and sales in Bourbon Street varies. The testimony of Beverage Officers Douglas, Maggio, Jones and Imperial, detailed below, indicates generally open drug use and discussion of sales during the period of their investigation (February and March, 1981). During the same period, Beverage Officers Alford, Thompson, Nelson and Fitzenmeyer were also assigned to the Bourbon Street investigation. By stipulation, they observed nothing of an incriminating nature. An attorney and a police officer who were patrons of Bourbon Street saw or heard nothing incriminating on their visits. An undercover investigator working for Bourbon Street observed no drug activity during a check in December, 1980, but had observed substantial drug activity on an earlier visit in May, 1980. On February 22nd, 1981, Beverage Officer Douglas entered the licensed premises of Bourbon Street to investigate alleged violations and remained on the premises until 4:45 a.m. February 23rd. Officer Douglas met a dancer identified as Jacque LaPriest who agreed to arrange a purchase of cocaine. Thereafter, LaPriest placed two calls using the telephone located at the bar. After the second call, which was placed about 4:10 a.m., she advised Douglas that her man would be there in 20 to 25 minutes. At 4:30 a.m. a man introduced as Dave arrived. LaPriest obtained a package which contained the alleged cocaine. Douglas paid $140 to LaPriest for the substance. Douglas then left the premises and field tested the substance. He received a positive indicating of cocaine and prepared the substance for delivery to the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department Crime Laboratory Bureau (hereinafter crime lab). Officer Douglas sealed the substance in an envelope but did not personally deliver it to the crime lab. The test was performed by Harry J. Coleman, and his report (Exhibit 2) established that the substance was cocaine. [Count 4]. On the evening of February 22nd and the morning of February 23, 1981, Beverage Officers Douglas and Maggio were on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street. They engaged in conversations centering on drugs with a dancer identified as Jennifer. At about 12:30 a.m., February 23, Jennifer gave Douglas and Maggio a packet containing a substance they believed to be cannabis. Douglas field tested the substance and obtained an indication of cannabis. The crime lab analysis performed by Albert C. Christensen confirmed that the substance was cannabis (Exhibit 4). [Count 7]. About 2:30 a.m., February 23, 1981, Beverage Officer Douglas, while on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street, was approached by a dancer identified as Maya Qaulliu. She offered to sell Douglas one gram of cocaine for $80.00. Douglas made the purchase and secured the substance for delivery to the crime lab. The analysis, performed by Albert C. Christensen, established that the substance was cocaine (Exhibit 4). [Count 8]. During the early morning hours of March 19, 1981, Beverage Officer Douglas was on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street. A dancer, Jacque LaPriest, offered to obtain cocaine for him at $90 per gram. They agreed that Douglas would purchase two grams and give LaPriest one-half gram. At 12:50 a.m. LaPriest informed Douglas that her man had arrived. She went outside the bar to meet the individual bringing the substance. Douglas paid LaPriest $180 and observed her receiving the packets, which Douglas subsequently acquired. He field tested the substance and obtained an indication of cocaine. The crime lab analysis performed by Jack J. Genova established that the substance was cocaine (Exhibit 6). [Count 9]. On the evening of March 19, and in the early morning hours of March 20, 1981, Beverage Officer Douglas was on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street. He discussed drugs with a dancer identified as Jacque LaPriest. At 12:45 a.m., LaPriest advised Douglas that she was going to "snort" cocaine and agreed to save a "line" for Douglas. She subsequently gave him a folded one dollar bill which contained the alleged cocaine. He replaced this dollar bill and tipped LaPriest for giving him the substance. Douglas secured the dollar bill for later analysis. The crime lab test performed by Jack J. Genova established that the substance was cocaine (Exhibit 8). [Count 10]. On the evening of March 20 and early morning of March 21, 1981, Beverage Officer Douglas was on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street. The dancer, Jacque LaPriest, offered to obtain two grams of cocaine for Douglas with a request that he give her one half-gram. Subsequently, LaPriest delivered three packets of the alleged cocaine to Douglas. He gave one container to LaPriest and field tested the contents of the remaining packets. He obtained a positive indication of cocaine which was later confirmed by the crime lab analysis performed by Kenneth F. Ede (Exhibit 15). [Count 11]. On the evening of February 17 and early morning hours of February 18, 1981, Beverage Officers Jones and Imperial were on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street. Jones was approached by the dancer Maya Qaulliu who subsequently gave him two alleged cannabis cigarettes. Jones secured the cigarettes and later submitted them for analysis. The crime lab report, signed by Newton E. Porter, confirmed that the cigarettes contained cannabis (Exhibit 12). [Count 1]. Beverage Officers Imperial and Jones were on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street on the evening of February 17 and the early morning hours of February 18, 1981. Imperial was approached by a dancer identified as Mary, who subsequently gave him an alleged cannabis cigarette. He retained the cigarette and later submitted it for laboratory analysis. The crime lab report, prepared by Newton E. Porter, established that the cigarette contained cannabis (Exhibit 13). [Count 2]. Beverage Officers Imperial and Jones were on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street in the early morning hours of February 18, 1981, and sought to purchase cocaine from the dancer Maya Qaulliu. In response to this request, Qaulliu introduced Imperial and Jones to an individual identified as Herbert R. Wolff, who thereafter left the premises. About 30 minutes after Wolff's departure, the bartender Nina called Qaulliu, who was on the dance stage, to the phone. The beverage officers heard Qaulliu discussing cocaine and during the conversation she stated to the officers: "$80 dollars a gram for coke." This statement was made openly and could have been heard by other persons near the bar, including the bartender Nina who was closer to Qaulliu than the beverage officers. [Counts 3, 12, 13]. Wolff returned to the bar and was thereupon accompanied to the restroom by Imperial and Jones. Wolff gave the beverage officers two grams of suspected cocaine for which each officer paid Wolff $80. This material was later delivered to the crime lab for testing and was found to contain cocaine by Jack J. Genova (Exhibit 18). [Count 3]. Subsequently, during the early morning hours of February 18, 1981, Wolff offered to sell cannabis to Beverage Officers Jones and Imperial. This offer took place on the licensed premises in the presence of Qaulliu. The officers agreed to buy and accompanied Wolff to a parking lot adjacent to the premises where they observed about five pounds of suspected cannabis in the trunk of Wolff's car. The officers purchased one pound of the substance for $180. The material was subsequently tested in the crime lab where it was found to contain cannabis by Newton E. Porter (Exhibit 20). [Counts 12, 13]. Beverage Officers Jones and Imperial were on the licensed premises of Bourbon Street during the evening of February 22, and the early morning hours of February 23, 1981. A dancer known as Kitten or Jennifer gave Jones a suspected cannabis cigarette which he later submitted for crime lab analysis. The substance was tested by Robert J. DiMarzo and proved to be cannabis (Exhibit 23). [Count 6]. During the late evening of February 22, 1981, Beverage Officers Imperial and Jones asked the dancer Maya Qaulliu if cocaine was available. She advised them that she could arrange a purchase and placed several phone calls in the presence of the bartender, Mary. Imperial heard Qaulliu order two grams of cocaine for $80 per gram. Mary was standing nearby and could have heard these conversations. About 2:00 a.m. February 23, Herbert Wolff arrived and requested that Imperial and Jones follow him into the restroom. He then delivered the suspected cocaine and received $180 from the beverage officers. Wolff inhaled a substance suspected to be cocaine while they were in the restroom. Customers came in and left the restroom during these transactions and could have heard the discussions. The substance purchased by Officers Imperial and Jones was forwarded to the crime lab and was found to be cocaine by Robert J. DiMarzo (Exhibit 23). [Counts 5, 12, 13]. Newton E. Porter, who prepared Exhibits 12, 13 and 20, was the only crime lab analyst present to testify at the hearing. However, Porter verified that the other reports offered into evidence by Petitioner were prepared by crime lab employees assigned to substance analysis. Porter described the crime lab accounting controls and testing procedures, and was available for cross- examination on these matters. This testimony coupled with property receipts which the beverage officers obtained on each substance submitted to the crime lab support a finding that the evidence was properly handled and that the conclusions reached in the crime lab reports are valid.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in Count 12 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 23-0523, Series 4-COP be suspended for a period of 90 days, inclusive of the temporary suspension now in effect. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 24th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry A. Amoon, Esquire 123 N. W. 12th Avenue Miami, Florida 33128
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, Maximilliano N. Gonzales (respondent or Max) is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-04935, Series 2-COP, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). The license is used in conjunction with the operation of a lounge known as the Los Amigos Bar (bar or lounge) located at 5 Southwest 55th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent and his companion, Olga, purchased the lounge in January, 1983 and have operated it since that time. Generally, either Max or Olga is on the premises supervising operations although Max was seriously injured by a customer about a year ago while breaking up an altercation and was forced to curtail his activities. Consequently, he has hired several other persons to assist him in managing the lounge during 1987. In the summer of 1987, the Division received a list of fifty Miami area establishments where the City of Miami police department suspected illicit drug transactions were taking place. RespondeV bar was one of these establishments. As a part of its investigation, the Division sent two undercover investigators (Garcia and Santana) to the lounge on August 21, 1987 to ascertain whether the police department's suspicions were well- founded. The two visited the bar on a recurring basis until October 8, 1987 when the Division issued an Emergency Order of Suspension which shut down the lounge and suspended respondent's license. That prompted the case sub judice. During their seven week investigation, Santana and Garcia observed a number of open and flagrant drug transactions and other illicit acts taking place on the licensed premises. In accordance with the parties' stipulation, these acts are summarized in chronological order in the findings below. For purposes of this order, Roberto was a patron of the bar, Carlos was its manager, and Loreno, Rosa, Lourdes, Eliza and Genny were barmaids. Further, all employees were on duty when the events herein occurred. The investigation While visiting the lounge on or about September 2, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Lorena and Roberto and asked if they wished to purchase some cocaine. The investigators told Roberto that they would each be interested in purchasing a half gram of cocaine. Roberto then left the licensed premises and returned shortly thereafter and handed each investigator a half gram packet containing what appeared to be cocaine, a controlled substance. Garcia paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place "in front of the bar" and in the presence of Lorena and Rosa. The substance purchased was sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. On another visit to the lounge on or about September 4, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. Garcia told Roberto he and Santana wished to order a half gram each. Roberto left the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later. He handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. Garcia then paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place in plain view while the investigators were seated at the bar and in the presence of Rosa. The substance purchased was subsequently sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. While at the premises on September 4, Santana and Garcia heard Roberto ask Rosa in a loud voice if she wanted to purchase some cocaine. A short (but loud) conversation between Roberto and Rosa then ensued while in the presence of approximately ten patrons and three other barmaids. Throughout the same evening, several patrons were observed purchasing what appeared to be cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. On or about September 8, 1987, Santana and Garcia observed Roberto selling what appeared to be cocaine to numerous patrons inside the licensed premises. The investigators were later approached by Roberto who asked if they wished to purchase the drug. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed him two packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Lorena, Lourdes and Eliza. In addition, Carlos was on the licensed premises when these activities occurred. The substance purchased by the investigators from Roberto was thereafter sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On or about September 10, 1987, while on the licensed premises, Santana and Garcia were approached on two occasions by Lourdes and Genny who solicited drinks from the officers. The investigators then went to the parking lot of the licensed premises, and were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed Santana two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. The substance was later laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. After entering the premises on or about September 14, 1987, the investigators were immediately approached by Lourdes who solicited the officers for an alcoholic beverage. They were later solicited in the same fashion by Genny. Later on, Santana met with Roberto and Rosa and asked if he could buy some cocaine. Santana handed Roberto sixty dollars and returned to his seat at the bar. Shortly thereafter, Roberto approached the investigators at the bar and handed Santana two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Rosa and Genny. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On or about September 17, 1987, the investigators returned to the lounge and met with Eliza concerning a purchase of cocaine. Eliza approached a patron who was seated at the other end of the bar and briefly conversed with him. Eliza returned to the investigators and told them that she could obtain cocaine for sixty dollars per gram, and that the cocaine would be delivered to the bar in approximately thirty minutes. Some thirty minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and approached the investigators and asked if they desired to buy the drug. Santana told him he was interested in such a purchase and handed Roberto sixty dollars in exchange for two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. The packets were delivered on top of the bar counter in plain view and in the presence of Eliza and Lourdes. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. While at the lounge on September 17, Genny solicited two drinks from Santana. The two investigators also had extensive conversations with Eliza regarding the purchase of cocaine. On or about September 21, 1987, Santana and Garcia met with the manager, Carlos, concerning the purchase of cocaine from Roberto. During the conversation, Carlos was told several times that the investigators had purchased cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. Carlos merely responded that "Roberto is a good guy, but he is not here." At no time did Carlos express disapproval of the cocaine transactions occurring within the licensed premises. On the same visit, barmaid Genny solicited two drinks from the investigators. The investigators also had conversations with Genny regarding the availability of cocaine on the licensed premises. However, they were informed by her that Roberto had not yet arrived. On or about September 22, 1987, Santana and Garcia visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked whether they wished to purchase some cocaine. Eliza also informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper if any of his "regular customers" needed to purchase cocaine. She added that if Roberto could not come to the bar, she could sell them drugs obtained from her source who was present at the bar. After Santana and Garcia told her that they were interested in purchasing cocaine,, Eliza took a quarter from the business cash register and placed a telephone call on the lounge telephone. Eliza then returned and informed them that Roberto was on his way to the bar. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge, approached the investigators, and handed Garcia two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substance purchased was sent to the laboratory where an analysis confirmed the substance to be cocaine. It is also noted that on this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 24, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the bar and were approached by Eliza who asked if they wished to purchase cocaine. She again informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper should the investigators wish to make a purchase. After Santana and Garcia placed an order for cocaine, Eliza went to the public telephone inside the licensed premises, and made a telephone call. After she returned she advised them that Roberto would be arriving soon. Approximately twenty minutes later, Roberto arrived at the licensed premises and told them that he had the cocaine that they had ordered. Roberto then gave Santana one gram of a substance that appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. He also handed Garcia one-half gram of a substance appearing to be cocaine in exchange for thirty dollars. The two transactions took place in plain view in the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substances purchased were laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. During this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 28, 1987, the two investigators returned to the lounge and were approached by Eliza and Genny who asked if they were interested in purchasing some cocaine. Eliza told them that Roberto was not in the bar but that she could call him on his beeper. Garcia requested that Eliza telephone Roberto and order a gram of cocaine. Eliza left for a few moments and was observed making a telephone call inside the licensed premises. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Genny. The purchased substance was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On the same visit, Santana asked Roberto if he could purchase a gram of cocaine. Roberto said yes and told him the cocaine was stored in his car in the parking lot. The two then went to the car, where Roberto removed a package containing what appeared to be a half gram of cocaine, and gave it to Santana in exchange for twenty-five dollars. The substance was sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On October 1, 1987, Santana and Garcia again visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked them if they wished to purchase cocaine. She also advised them that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day. Even so, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Garcia and Santana then placed orders for one and one-half grams of cocaine, respectively. After leaving for a few moments, Eliza returned and handed Santana and Garcia a brown paper napkin containing what appeared to be a gram and a half of cocaine. She was then paid seventy-five dollars by the investigators. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On October 6, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the lounge and were asked by Eliza if they were interested in purchasing cocaine. Although she noted that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Thereafter, Garcia and Santana each ordered one-half gram of cocaine from Eliza. After leaving the premises for a few minutes, Eliza returned and gave each investigator what appeared to be one- half gram of cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. A laboratory analysis of the substance confirmed it was cocaine. When the above events occurred, there were no signs posted in the lounge warning patrons not to use drugs or to bring them on the premises. Further, the two investigators were never told by the manager or other employees to not use drugs, nor did they ever see a patron asked to leave because of having drugs in his possession. Max was seen in the lounge almost every day when the investigators were conducting their operation. However, there is no evidence that he personally saw a drug transaction take place, or that he was aware of any illicit activity. This is also the first occasion on which the licensed premises has been investigated. Mitigation At hearing Max and Olga appeared remorseful about this episode. They denied having knowledge of any drug transactions, and stated that around six months ago they had requested two Miami police officers to lend assistance in ridding their lounge of undesirable elements. They also told the police that "rocks" were being smoked in an adjacent parking lot. After the suspension of their license, the barmaids were fired. It is not clear whether Carlos was fired, but he only worked at the lounge for one or two months. A former manager who worked the first five months of 1987 testified he saw no drugs during his tenure, and that he was advised by Max to call the police if there were any problems. Because of his gunshot wounds, Max concedes it was necessary to hire other persons, perhaps too young, to oversee the lounge. He blames the incidents on those employees. If the license is reinstated, Max intends to shorten business hours and to have either himself or Olga on the premises at all times to ensure that no illicit activities occur. They also desire to sell the establishment, since they have invested their life savings in the business, and it represents their sole support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of all charges in the Notice to Show Cause and that his License No. 230495, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4483 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. 3. Covered in finding of fact 6. 4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 8. 6. Covered in finding of fact 9. 7. Covered in finding of fact 10. 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. 9. Covered in finding of fact 11. 10. Covered in finding of fact 12. 11. Covered in finding of fact 13. 12. Covered in finding of fact 14. 13. Covered in finding of fact 15. 14. Covered in finding of fact 16. 15. Covered in finding of fact 17. 16. Covered in finding of fact 18. 17. Covered in finding of fact 19. 18. Covered in finding of fact 20. 19. Covered in finding of fact 3. 20. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 21. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. 5.(a) Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3 to the extent the investigation was prompted by the City of Miami. The remainder is not supported by the evidence. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Rejected since the evidence shows Lourdes and Rosa worked "many months" and "3-4 months," respectively. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. 6. Covered in finding of fact 23. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Jose M. Herrera, Esquire Post Office Box 345118 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether or not on or about July 13, 1975, Arthur Hayes, Jr., licensed under the beverage laws, and or his agent, servant or employee did sell or permit to be sold, served or consumed alcoholic beverages, to wit: a quart bottle of Schlitz beer, any time otherwise not provided for by county or municipal ordinance, contrary to Florida Statutes 561.29 Whether or not on or about July 20, 1975, Arthur Hayes, Jr. licensed under the beverage laws and or his agent, servant or employee did sell or permit to be sold, served or consumed, alcoholic beverages, to wit: a quart bottle of Schlitz beer at a time otherwise not provided for by county or municipal ordinance, contrary to Florida Statutes 561.29.
Findings Of Fact In the presentation of its case, the petitioner called beverage agent Eugene Fogel to the stand. On or about July 13, 1975, agent Fogel was working for the Sanford, Florida, Police Department and in addition was acting in an undercover capacity for the Division of Beverage. At around 2:00 p.m. July 13, 1975, then police officer Fogel met with agent Herb Baker of the Division of Beverage in Sanford, Florida, for purposes of investigating alleged illegal alcoholic beverage sales which were being made on Sunday. The witness, Fogel, went to the address of Dinah's West Side Grocery, entered the store and purchased a quart bottle of Schlitz beer from the respondent, Arthur Hayes, Jr., This particular item of evidence became petitioner's exhibit 1 and is currently in the custody vault of the Division of Beverage District Office in Orlando, Florida. Testimony by agent Herb Baker indicated that the meeting as spoken of by agent Fogel had transpired, and he had seen agent Fogel enter the subject premises on July 13, 1975, and come out with a paper bag which contained petitioner's exhibit number 1. This exhibit was turned over to agent Baker. Officer Fogel testified that on Sunday, July 20, 1975, the same sequence of events occurred that had occurred on Sunday, July 13, 1975. He met agent Baker and then went to Dinah's West Side Grocery around 3:30 p.m. and purchased a quart bottle of Schlitz beer, which is petitioner's exhibit number 2. The petitioner's exhibit number 2 is now located in the custody of the District Office, Division of Beverage, Orlando, Florida. Again, agent Baker stated that he observed officer Fogel go into the premises on July 20, 1975, return with a bag and that the bag contained a quart bottle of Schlitz beer. The testimony was given by officer Fogel that July 13, 1975 and July 20, 1975, were Sundays. Other Petitioner's exhibits admitted into evidence were exhibit number 3 which is a notice to show cause with accompanying administrative complaint, exhibit 4 which is a notice of hearing, and exhibit 5 which is a copy of an ordinance in Seminole County, Florida. This ordinance was in effect on July 13, 1975 and July 20, 1975, and prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages on any Sunday. The respondent took the stand in his own behalf and indicated that he knew Eugene Fogel in July of 1975, and knew that Eugene Fogel was a policemen with the Sanford Police Department. He stated that he therefore would not have sold beer to Officer Fogel on Sunday, because he knew such a sale would be illegal. The witness also stated that the only employees in his store were he and his wife and consequently the only explanation he could think of for the two quarts of beer, was that the policemen had stolen the beer from his freezer. He said this would have been easy since there was no lock on the beer freezer and it was close to the door. After assessing the testimony of the witnesses, together with the examination of the evidence it is determined that the violations as alleged in counts 1 and 2 in the administrative complaint have been proven. This determination is arrived at because it would not appear that there is any motive on the part of the two police officers to promote absolute falsehoods. On the other hand considering the interest of the respondent and the quality of his comments, he has not effectively explained or defended against the charges.
Recommendation For committing the offense as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the respondent, Arthur Hayes Jr., have his license suspended for a period of 30 days. For committing the offense as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the respondent, Arthur Hayes, Jr., pay a civil penalty in the amount of $150.00. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Arthur Hayes, Jr. 1717 West 18th Street Sanford, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF BEVERAGE IN RE: DINAH'S WEST SIDE GROCERY 1717 West 18th Street CASE NO. 75-2011 Sanford, Florida DABT CASE NO. 5-75-94-A License No. 69-139 /
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent has held License No. 23-800 S 4 COP, issued by petitioner. Respondent owns and operates the Singapore Hotel on Miami Beach in Dade County, Florida. Jerrold Bloom became a stockholder in respondent on or about April 1, 1965, acquiring a one-fortieth interest in the corporation, which he held until April 10, 1981, at which time he sold his entire interest in respondent (two and a half shares) to Verna Bloom. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5. This sale occurred after respondent filed suit seeking an injunction requiring Jerrold Bloom to divest himself of all ownership interest in respondent. Singapore J. V., Inc. v. Jerrold Bloom, No. 01-5063 (Fla. 11th Cir.). Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. At no time was Jerrold Bloom an officer or employee of respondent, nor did he ever have any voice in respondent's operations. Be has not been in the Singapore Hotel three times in the last 20 years. (Testimony of Meyer Wassell) On April 5, 1978, Jerrold Bloom was convicted of securities price manipu1ation, a felony, in violation of Title 15, U.S.C., 78 i (a)(1)(b) and 78 ff (a) and 18 U.S.C., 2, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sy Chadroff, Esquire Suite 800 200 Southwest First Street Miami, Florida 33131 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Rajenor Bajrangi held a valid Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter Division), license for the premises known as the Quick Stop Center (hereinafter licensed premises), license number 6k9-305, series 2-APS, located at 1201 Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Underage operative Robert Scott assists the Sanford Police Department in determining whether or not licensed premises will sell alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 years of age. Mr. Scott was born on April 17, 1969, and on Monday, May 23, 1988, he was nineteen years old. On May 23, 1988, Robert Scott entered the licensed premise, walked to the back of the store, removed a 12 oz. can of Miller beer from the cooler, and proceeded to the check-out counter. He presented the beer to a man that he identified at the hearing as being Rajenor Bajrangi. Mr. Bajrangi, without requesting any identification, rang up the beer on the cash register and received from Mr. Scott the requested price for the beer. Mr. Scott departed the premise with the beer and met Officer Collison outside where Mr. Scott gave Officer Collison the Miller beer. At no time during this transaction did Mr. Bajrangi inquire as to Mr. Scott's age. Officer Chris A. Collison of the Sanford, Florida, Police Department has been a police officer for over eight years. On May 23, 1988, about 10:00 p.m., he went in an unmarked car with another officer and Robert Scott to the licensed premises. He was able to observe Mr. Scott enter the licensed premises purchase the aforementioned beer and then depart the premises. The funds that Mr. Scott used to purchase the beer were provided by Mr. Collison. Mr. Collison received the Miller beer purchased by Mr. Scott from the hands of Mr. Scott. He identified the beer that was offered as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 as being the beer that was given to him by Robert Scott. David E. Ramey is a law enforcement investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and he has been so employed for over eleven years. He inspected the can of Miller beer that was entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and knows that the evidence was labeled as beer, that it was contained in an unopened can, that it had lithographed on the lid of the can the word "Florida," and that it bore the manufacturer's trademark. Investigator Ramey had the opinion that the substance in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is beer. The usual penalty for a licensee selling to an underage person is a $1,000.00 civil penalty accompanied by a 20-day license suspension. Mr. Rajenor Bajrangi testified that, on May 23, 1988, when Mr. Scott purchased the beer, there was a large group of rowdy people loitering in the vicinity of the licensed premise and that the police officers should have arrested these rowdy persons instead of trying to make an underage case against him. Neither the testimony of Officer Collison or that of Mr. Scott served to bolster Mr. Bajrangi's claim that he was diverted by the so-called rowdy persons and Officer Collison specifically stated that there were no distractions occurring in the vicinity of the licensed premise at the time the beverage was purchased. Considering the evidence as a whole, there was no credible evidence that Respondent was distracted at the time the beverage was purchased.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the licensee guilty of a violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000.00 and a three (3) day license suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. MANRY 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 12th day of July, 1988. 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 Recommended Order Paragraph 1-6. Accepted Respondent's letter dated July 4, 1989. Did not dispute Petitioner's finding of fact but was in the nature of mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rajenor Bajrangi c/o Quick Stop Center 1201 Airport Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32771 Leonard Ivey Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. McNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner adopts the Additional Findings of Fact on Remand as set forth by the Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order on Remand dated September 15, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order holding respondent Surf Attractions, Inc. d/b/a One Stop Food guilty of violating Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), and imposing a civil penalty of $500.00, payment of $400.00 of which to be suspended upon the conditions: (1) that it does not again violate Section 562.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983); and (2) that it adopts and enforces a policy of requiring the proof of identification referred to in subparagraph (b) of Section 562.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), whenever it appears reasonably possible that a customer might be under the legal age. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSON 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 12th day of December, 1984.
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1983, Mr. Luther Thomas, petitioner in this case, who operates an automotive repair shop in Gainesville, Florida, entered the Respondent's local office and secured an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License (DBR Form 700-1) and the related Personal Questionnaire (DBR Form 710L). These forms were filled out, signed under oath by Petitioner and submitted to Respondent for processing on March 28, 1983. At the time the forms were submitted, the questionnaire had on it a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been arrested for or charged with a violation of a felony law or misdemeanor law of the State of Florida, any other state, or the United States, excluding minor traffic laws. This form was marked "No" by Petitioner. Whether he did it at the time of submittal or when it was brought to his attention by a beverage officer who came to his place of business is in question, but when it was done is immaterial. The fact remains that Petitioner stated "No" when in fact, according to his testimony at the hearing, he had been charged several times: once for failure to pay support, and twice for driving while under the influence. Also, in addition, in 1968, he appeared before a judge on an allegation of assault with intent to commit homicide, but was never arrested. He voluntarily reported to the courthouse without being placed under arrest, and the allegation was dismissed. However, since Petitioner could not state with any particularity what actually happened, and since Respondent did not produce any evidence of a charge or arrest, this incident is not considered as being reportable. The DWIs and the failures to pay support were not felonies at the time of commission. Sometime after the submission of the application, Beverage Officer Woodrow came out to Petitioner's place of business to do a sketch of the layout which was needed to process the application. During this visit, Woodrow indicated to Petitioner that they needed to talk about his arrest record. At this point, Petitioner responded to the effect that he "ain't never been arrested." The prior involvement for assault with intent to commit homicide was known to Respondent and considered at the time it issued him a prior beverage license in 1973 or 1974. Mr. Thomas felt that since he had not been arrested then, since the allegation had been dismissed, and since he had previously been issued a license with this information known to Respondent, there was no reason to list it again. This former license lapsed when Mr. Thomas went out of business after a heart attack. It was not disciplined or revoked by Respondent. The questionnaire form which Petitioner filled out contains, in the oath, the reference to Section 559.791, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides that a false statement in the questionnaire or application constitutes grounds for denial of a license. The "pending and undetermined criminal and felony charges" referred to in Respondent's letter of denial, according to Petitioner, related to three separate worthless checks. These charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and resolved by Petitioner making restitution. No jail time or fine was imposed. Mr. Thomas is presently facing misdemeanor charges in Alachua County, Florida, in violation of Section 837.06, Florida Statutes (1981) , based on the same alleged false statement in the questionnaire as are used as basis for denial of his license here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Luther Thomas, doing business as Lake Road Beverages, be issued an alcoholic beverage license as applied for. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Luther Thomas 2824 N.E. 12th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire 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 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
