Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding Of Facts 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 Clarece Hicks d/b/a Sand-spur Saloon guilty under the third charge in the Notice To Show Cause; Imposing a civil penalty of $500; and Dismissing the other charges in the Notice To Show Cause. Jurisdiction is retained for purposes of the ruling on the Division's Motion For Costs And Attorneys Fees, served February 25, 1985, filed simultaneously with this Recommended Order and for purposes of determining the Division's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issue herein is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all the evidence the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, Annie L. Wright d/b/a Coffee's Draft Beer, is the holder of license number 26-1716,License Series 2-COP, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). The license authorizes Respondent to operate an establishment at 2601 Pearl Street, Jacksonville, Florida to sell beer and wine with consumption on premises. On or about August 12, 1982, Division Beverage Officer Hamilton visited Respondent's licensed premises for the purpose of purchasing illegal drugs. The officer sat at the bar and ordered a beer. While seated at the bar, he observed a card game in progress on the premises in which U.S. currency was being transferred between the players. He also observed two individuals named Red and Wesley who were smoking two cigarettes that the officer believed to be marijuana. When the officer asked a patron where he could purchase marijuana, he was directed to Nell, a cardplayer, who sold him a manila envelope allegedly containing marijuana for $5.00. A drug analysis performed at a later date confirmed that the envelope did indeed contain 2.6 grams of cannabis. The purchase of the drug was made in plain view of the card players, bartender and other patrons seated at the bar. At no time did the bartender (Faye) attempt to stop the gambling, use of drugs or the sale of drugs or to ask the individuals to leave the premises. On or about August 21, 1982, Officer Hamilton returned to Respondent's licensed premises around 11:15 a.m. Faye was on duty as bartender. While there the officer observed a female named Doris Jean Johnson take out a cigarette and smoke it in the presence of the bartender and another female patron. The cigarette was passed to the other female patron who also smoked it. Based upon the odor emanating from the cigarette, Officer Hamilton believed it was marijuana. While smoking the cigarette Faye cautioned Johnson to be careful since police officers occasionally visited the premises. The beverage officer also observed four unidentified males on the premises playing cards. United States currency was being bet on each game and transferred between the card players upon the completion of the games. On or about August 28, 1982, Beverage Officer Junious visited Re5pondent'5 licensed premises around 6:30 p.m. He sat at the bar and ordered a beer from a bartender named Tommy. Officer Junious asked Tommy where he could purchase some "grass". He was told someone on the premises should have some for sale but he (Tommy) wasn't exactly sure whom. While seated at the bar Officer Junious saw six hand-rolled cigarettes being smoked by patrons in plain view of the bartender and other patrons. Based upon their odor and the manner in which they were smoked, the officer believed the cigarettes to be marijuana. On or about September 4, 1982, Beverage Officer Hamilton visited the licensed premises around 4:10 p.m. and ordered a beer from an unidentified male bartender. He observed a card game in progress in which U.S. money was being bet and transferred between the players. The bartender also took a "cut" from the pot on several occasions. During the game Wesley, a card player, pulled a manila envelope from his pocket, had a female patron roll a cigarette from its contents, and then smoked it. Based upon its odor and the manner in which it was smoked, Officer Hamilton believed the cigarette to be marijuana. On or about September 29, 1982 Beverage Officer Hicks executed a search warrant on the premises and arrested Doris Jean Johnson for possession of cannabis. A laboratory analysis later confirmed that Johnson was in possession 8.6 grams of cannabis. Respondent stated that when the above events occurred, she was working another full-time job. For that reason she hired Faye to manage the establishment. When Faye was hired she was instructed not to permit gambling or smoking on the premises. She also posted a sign on the front of the building which read "No drugs allowed on premises. Because of her full-time job, and the fact she had no transportation and did not live nearby, Respondent visited the premises only at night. When she learned that drugs and gambling had been discovered at her business, she fired all employees who were working during that period of time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the notice to show cause, and that her beverage license number 26-1716 be suspended for a period of thirty days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Annie L. Wright 1703 North Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Bay Street, Inc., trading as Howard's G" String, is located at 102 E. Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings, (Beverage License No. 269l9, Series 4-COP) Case No. 81-1825 contains ten counts, five of which were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner. The remaining counts involve alleged lewd and lascivious acts and an alleged offer to commit prostitution. These charges were based on an undercover investigation by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in May, June, August and September, 1980. The testimony of Officer Beacham established that on May 8, 1980, the dancer Karen Wood rubbed a male patron's groin with her buttocks and the dancer Rosetta Smith allowed a male patron to rub her groin area. This conduct took place while the dancers were performing for individual customers. In both cases, their breasts were bare and in close proximity to the patrons' faces. The testimony of Officer Bennett established that on June 26, 1980, the dancer Catherine E. Maryon permitted a male patron to fondle her groin area and to fondle her nude breasts. This conduct continued over a period of about five minutes while Maryon was performing for the patron. The testimony of Officer Hall established that on August 30, 1980, the dancer Darlene Veldon Hughes allowed a male patron to massage her genital area and the insides of her legs while she was performing for him. She wore a bikini brief, but was otherwise nude during this procedure. The testimony of Officer Perret established that on September 2, 1980, the dancer Trudy A. Blincoe offered to engage in sexual intercourse with him for $100. This was established by the nature of their discussion and her statement that she would give "no oral sex, just straight sex." Petitioner conducted a separate investigation of Respondent in February, 1981, through its beverage officers who visited the licensed premises in undercover capacities. This investigation culminated in the 29 charges contained in Case No. 81-1824. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink on February 11, 1981. The drink was delivered by the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who received the money for the drink. Kathy also approached Johnson and the dancer Laura on that date, and asked if Laura wanted another drink. Laura then asked Johnson for a drink, which he purchased from Kathy. Johnson's testimony further established that the dancer Ursala Kadlecik asked him to purchase a drink for her on February 27, 1981. The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 18, 1981, the dancer Barbie asked him to buy drinks for her on two occasions. Arguelles purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 11, 1981, the dancers Susan and Elizabeth each asked him to buy drinks for them, and on February 14 and 27, 1981, Susan again asked Lachman to buy drinks for her. On February 18, 1981, the dancers Karen, Angie and April each asked Lachman to buy drinks for them. He purchased the drinks as requested on each of these occasions. The testimony of Beverage Officer Balaguer established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink and on February 18, 1981, the dancer Laura asked him to buy her a drink. He purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that on February 25, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink. She repeated the request and Sams purchased the drink. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Marty approached him and performed her dance at his table. During this procedure, she rubbed his hand against her groin and also held it against her nude breast. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that the dancer Susan performed dances at his table on February 25 and 27, 1981. On each occasion she rubbed her nude breasts against his face. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 5, 1981, the dancer Susan suggested a "date" to him. She stated that the price was $75 for the night and $25 as a penalty for her to leave the bar. She also stated that they would go to a motel and she would do "anything he wanted." Johnson's testimony further established that on February 11, 1981, the dancer Lisa suggested that she and Johnson go to a "party" at a motel. She stated that the price for this would be $30 for the bar plus either $50 for one- half hour, $100 for an hour or $200 for the whole-night. She also said Johnson could do "anything" so long as he did not "get rough." The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 28, 1981, the dancer Lucy Brightwell offered to "go out" with him. She stated that the charge for this service was $100, which included $25 to leave the bar. She told Arguelles that he could do anything he wanted except "the back door." She also motioned to her vaginal area and stated, "straight fuck." The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 27, 1981, he discussed leaving the bar with the dancer Ramona Strickland. The discussion involved three dancers leaving with the three undercover beverage officers (Lachman, Sams and Rowe) . Strickland stated that the price would include $25 for each dancer to leave the bar and a total charge of $248. Lachman later paid the bartender-waitress, Kathy, $88 for the three dancers to leave the bar. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that he discussed going to a hotel room with the dancer Belinda on February 27, 1981. She stated that the charge for this would be $25 to leave the bar and $50 per one-half hour for each dancer. The testimony of Beverage Officer Rowe established that on February 25, 1981, he discussed "going out" with the dancers Laura and Belinda. He asked Laura if he would "get his money s worth," and she said that he would and that she was "good in bed." Rowe continued the discussion on February 27, 1981, when he asked Laura if the "deal was still on." She stated that it was and asked him if he had made room arrangements. Laura also stated that she did not want "to fuck" in the same room with others. Rowe also discussed the transaction with the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who told him to meet the dancers at the side door and to have them back in 30 minutes. Although no records were produced to establish that the dancers identified herein were employed by Respondent, the fact of employment was evident from the control exercised over them by the bartender-waitress, their costumes, their periodic dances on stage and their movements from one customer to another while performing individual dances and collecting fees for this service. Testimony in this regard was given by all Petitioner's witnesses and was not rebutted by Respondent. It was not shown that the identification of some dancers by their first names or nicknames only created any ambiguity in the charges or prejudice to Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find Respondent guilty as charged in Counts l through 7, 9 through 17, 19, 21 through 24 and 26 through 29, Case No. 81-1824, and Count 9, Case No. 81-1825. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss all other charges against Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner suspend Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 26-919 for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 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 26th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Between June 6 and October 3, 1980, Petitioner's beverage officers and representatives of the Polk County Sheriff's Department conducted an undercover investigation of the Oasis Lounge in Ft. Meade. The business is operated by Milton Haverty who holds alcoholic beverage license No. 63-775. The manager- bartender during this period was John Haverty, the Respondent's son. On June 12, 1980, Beverage Officer West and Sgt. Allen of the Polk County Sheriff's Department visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On that date, Martha Ann Berry delivered a beer to Beverage Officer West and accepted his payment for it. Both Officer West and Sgt. Allen observed Berry serve beer to another patron. Berry had been reported to the Polk County Sheriff's Department as a runaway juvenile. However, there was no evidence presented in this proceeding to establish that she was under 18 years of age at the time she delivered the alcoholic beverages. During the June 12, 1980, undercover visit to the licensed premises, the investigators openly discussed stolen property and were subsequently approached by John Haverty who asked that they obtain a T.V. set for him. Haverty and Sgt. Allen had further discussions about the T.V. set and a "stolen" outboard motor on June 20 and 24, 1980, again on the licensed premises. On June 27, the motor which was represented as stolen property was delivered to Haverty. In exchange for the motor, Haverty gave Allen three bags of marijuana (less than 20 grams) The transaction took place on the licensed premises. A subsequent sale of electronics equipment represented to be stolen goods was made by Allen to John Haverty on the licensed premises October 3, 1980. Haverty paid Allen $75.00 for these items.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss the Notice to Show Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 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 30th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Milton Haverty Oasis Lounge 115 South Charleston Ft. Meade, Florida 33841
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
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.
The Issue This case was presented through a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against the Respondent, Norma D. Kettering, t/a Fancy Dancer, in which the requested relief is for the imposition of civil penalty, suspension or revocation of the beverage license allegedly held by Norma D. Kettering. The Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint contains the following accusations: "1. On or about the 27th of March, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit "JOHN DOE" on your licensed premises, a public place, did unlawfully sell or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, or deliver, a controlled substance to wit; METHAQUALONE to one Robert R. Jones, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $3.50 each, U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 893.13. On or about the 27th of March, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; DEBORAH MARIE ALTIZER, a/k/a "GINGER", dancer, on your licensed premises, a public place, did unlawfully sell or deliver or possess with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance to wit; METHAQUALONE, to one ROBERT R. JONES, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $3.50 each, U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit; F.S. 893.13. On or about the 27th of March, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; TAMMIE R. FRANCIS, a/k/a "RINA", dancer, on your licensed premises, a public place, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution, by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one ROBERT R. JONES, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $50.00 U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit; F.S. 796.07(3) (A). On or about the 9th of April, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit KATHY JEANETTE BROWN, a/k/a "KATHY", dancer, on your licensed premises, a public place, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution, by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one C. E. LLOYD, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $100.00, U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 796.07(3) (A). On or about the 9th of April, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; KATHY JEANETTE BROWN, a/k/a "KATHY", dancer, on your licensed premises, a public place, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution, by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one C. E. LLOYD, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $100.00 U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 796.07(3) (A). On or about the 12th of April, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; "CINNAMON", dancer, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution on your licensed premises, a public place, by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one B.A. WATTS, JR., Beverage Officer, for the sum of $20.00 U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 796.07(3)(A). On or about the 12th of April, 1980, you NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; TAMMIE R. FRANCIS a/k/a "RINA", dancer, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution on your licensed premises, a public place, by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one M. L. IMPERIAL, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $50.00 U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 796.07(3) (A). On or about the 13th of April, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; "TAMMY", dancer, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution on your licensed premises, a public place, by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one B.A. WATTS, JR., Beverage Officer, for the sum of $75.00, U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 796.07(3)(A). On or about the 13th of April, 1980, you, NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; "LICORICE", dancer, did unlawfully offer to commit an act of prostitution on your licensed premises, a public place by giving her body for sexual intercourse to one M. L. IMPERIAL, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $75.00 U.S. Currency, contrary to F.S. 561.29 to wit F.S. 796.07(3)(A). On or about the 13th of April, 1980, you NORMA D. KETTERING, licensed under the beverage law, your agent, servant or employee, to wit; DEBORAH MARIE ALTIZER, a/k/a "GINGER", dancer, did unlawfully sell or deliver, or possess with intent to sell or deliver on your licensed premises, a public place, a controlled substance to wit; METHAQUALONE to one ROBERT R. JONES, Beverage Officer, for the sum of $4.00 each, U.S. Currency, contrary to FS. 561.29 to wit F.S. 893.13."
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has complained against the named Respondent pursuant to those accusations as set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Respondent requested a formal hearing to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statues, and although the Respondent did not attend the hearing, the Respondent having requested the hearing, the Petitioner's case was presented. The Petitioner in this cause, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has its responsibility the licensure and regulation of the several beverage license holders in the State of Florida. Norma D. Kettering, who trades under the name of Fancy Dancer, is the holder of License No. 69-293, Series 2-COP, which allows for the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. The license is for a premises at Highways 17 and 92, Fern Park, Florida. The facts reveal that Beverage Officer Robert R. Jones went to the licensed premises on March 27, 1980, to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. Those violations dealt with offers by the agents, servants or employees of the licensee to commit acts of prostitution. Once inside the premises, Officer Jones was approached by a dancer in the premises whose stage name is "Ginger", who commented to Officer Jones that she was loaded on "Quaaludes". (The word "Quaalude" refers to the substance Methaqualone.) Officer Jones asked "Ginger" if she knew where he could get "Quaaludes". In response to this request, "Ginger" left the officer and went to an unknown white male who was seated in a chair in the establishment. He took two Methaqualones from his person and gave them to "Ginger", who in turn gave them to Officer Jones in return for money. On that same date, March 27, 1980, "Ginger" was seen to dance for the patrons while attired In a "G" string costume. She danced both on the main stage and in the area of the audience and was seen to receive money in exchange for her dancing. She was also referred to by the master of ceremonies as "Ginger". On March 27, 1980, Officer Jones was additionally approached by another dancer known as "Rina" who had been referred to by that name by the master of ceremonies who was announcing appearance of the dancers who were dancing on the main stage in the licensed premises. "Rina" then asked Jones if he wanted a "fuck." She explained to the officer that it would cost him $50.00; and that he would have to get rid of Beverage Officer Blanton, who was with Jones at the time. "Rina" also stated that she would "go more than once if she liked the first time". This conversation took place in the licensed promises. On April 13, 1980, Officer Robert R. Jones returned to the licensed premises and encountered the dancer, "Ginger" and paid her $4.00 each for two Methaqualone which she obtained after going to the dancers' dressing room in the licensed premises and returning to Officer Jones. On that date, "Ginger" was still performing as a dancer in the licensed premises. Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd went to the licensed premises on April 9, 1980, as part of the investigation. While in the licensed premises, he was approached by a dancer, Kathy Brown, whose stage name is "Kathy", who asked Officer Lloyd if she could dance for him. He agreed to allow her to "lap dance". Beverage Officer Lloyd paid "Kathy" $5.00 for a "lap dance" she performed. This is a form of dance where the female dancer sits on the lap of the male patron and goes through a series of gyrations while a record is played. Officer Lloyd asked Brown what would happen when she "got things started". Brown stated that she could take care of everything for him after she got off from work for a price of $100.00. He asked her what that meant and she replied she could "give you a fuck for $100.00". After this conversation, dancer Brown was called by the master of ceremonies to dance for the benefit of those patrons in the licensed premises and she danced on the stage. She was wearing a bikini-type costume. The conversation between Lloyd and Brown was overheard by Beverage Officer James A. Jones, Jr., who was with Lloyd on the date in question. She told Jones that he could drive Lloyd and her in the car while she serviced Lloyd and then she said she would "fuck" Jones, also for $100.00. Lloyd and Jones left the licensed premises and Brown followed them and upon entering the officers' vehicle, Brown was arrested for offering to commit prostitution. On April 12, 1980, Beverage Officer Bethel Watts, Jr., was dispatched to the licensed premises to continue the investigation. While in the licensed premises on that date, he was approached by a female dancer whom he had seen perform on the stage as a dancer while wearing only a "G" string. This dancer had been referred to as "Cinnamon", with that reference being made by the master of ceremonies in the licensed premises. "Cinnamon" asked the Respondent if he wanted a "lap dance". He replied, "Yes" and the dancer sat on his lap and squirmed around for the duration of one record. The dancer then told Officer Watts that she could "give you anything you want right here." He stated that he could not afford it and she asked if he had $20.00. She further stated that she could, "give him a 'quickie'". The dancer then went back to the stage area. Officer Watts paid the dancer "Cinnamon" $3.00 for the "lap dance". Officer Watts had gone to the licensed premises on April 12, 1980, with another Beverage Officer, Michael Lee Imperial. On that same date, a dancer who had been performing in the licensed premises who was known as "Rina" approached Officer Imperial and asked if he would like her to "lap dance". He agreed and she sat on his lap and performed the "dance" through three different records for a price of $5.00 each, a total price of $15.00. He asked the dancer if she did anything other than dance, to which she asked if he were a policeman, and he answered, "no". "Rina" then patted down the Beverage Officer to check to see if he were carrying any form of police identification. She then stated that she got off at 1:30 a.m. and would come by his room. She asked the Beverage Officer how much he could afford and he said "$50.00" and she indicated that she would give him "anything and everything he wanted" for the $50.00. Officers Watts and Imperial returned to the licensed premises on April 13, 1980. While in the licensed premises, Officer Imperial was approached by a dancer who was known as "Licorice" and she asked if he wanted her to "lap dance". He responded, "Yes" and she "danced" one record for a cost of $5.00. Officer Imperial stated to the dancer that she "sure felt good" and stated that he "bet" she was good in bed. She responded by stating that, "I am" and in turn he stated that he "bet" that, "I'll never find out", to which she responded that he could find out for $75.00. In turn the officer wanted to know what he would get for $75.00 and the dancer said, "You will get whatever you want me to do". Officer Imperial said that he would pick her up at seven o'clock. Nothing further occurred concerning this event. On the same date, April 13, 1980, Officers Watts and Imperial were sitting together and in the course of the conversation which Imperial had with one of the dancers, Imperial turned to Watts and asked Watts if he (Watts) wanted the dancer to get a girl for Watts. After some discussion, the dancer arranged to have another dancer whose stage name was "Tammy" and who had danced in the licensed premises and been referred to by the master of ceremonies by that name was brought and introduced to Officer Watts. (Watts had asked the other dancer to ask "Tammy" if she "would party". The other dancer responded that "Tammy" "would party" but it would cost $75.00.) Watts asked "Tammy" if she "would party" and she responded by saying that for $75.00 she would do anything that he wanted up to two hours, at which point she had an appointment in the licensed premises. The conversation terminated at the point when Watts stated that he would pick up a bottle of whiskey.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts One (1), Two (2), Three (3), Five (5) and Ten (10) of the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED and that the Respondent not be held for further answer. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the license held by the Respondent, Norma D. Kettering, No. 69-293, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED in view of the violations as established through Counts Four (4), Six (6), Seven (7), Eight (8) and Nine (9) in the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norma D. Kettering, t/a Fancy Dancer 236 Highways 17 & 92 Fern Park, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 June, 1991.
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 material to the charges raised in this matter, the Respondent, Fresh Start, Inc., was the holder of a valid beverage license No. 62-661, Series 4-COP. That beverage license is issued to the licensed premises located at 7898 U.S. Highway 19, Pinellas Park, Florida, and known as the Strip Ahoy. Mr. Jack Leveritt is president of Fresh Start, Inc., and one of the two owners of that corporation. Mr. Tom Whitaker owns 50 percent of the stock of Fresh Start, Inc., and is vice president of that corporation. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by and between the parties, on the record at the formal hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Count 1 - On or about March 9, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver controlled substance, diazepan, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Patton, on the licensed premises. Count 2 - On or about March 9, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver a controlled substance, diazepan, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Herrick, on the licensed premises. Count 3 - On or about March 10, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance, diazepan, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Ferdon, on the licensed premises. Count 4 - On or about March 12, 1983, Theresa Ann White, also known as Teanna, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance, as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Ferdon, on the licensed premises. Count 5 - On or about March 20, 1983, Joyce Ann Seville, also known as Sherry, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statutes 893.03, Lysergic acid Diathamine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 6 - On or about March 31, 1983, Sherry Ann Peters, also known as Carol, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Sheriff's Deputy D. Herrick, on the licensed premises. Count 7 - On or about April 1, 1983, Elizabeth Chader, also known as Luwanda, did unlawfully possess, sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 8 - On or about November 29, 1983, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 9 - On or about December 15, 1983, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 10- On or about January 8, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigators M. Freese and B. Ashley, on the licensed promises. Count 11 - On or about January 12, 1984, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 12 - On or about January 12, 1984, Cherie Webber, also known as Cherie, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 13 - On or about January 12, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 14 - On or about January 12, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 15 - On or about January 13, 1984, Cherie Webber, also known as Cherie, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cocaine, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 16 - On or about January 13, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 17 - On or about January 17, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 18 - On or about January 17, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 19 - On or about January 19, 1984, Christie Howard, also known as Christie, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Sheriff's Deputy C. Kanehl, on the licensed premises. Count 20 - On or about January 28, 1984, Kimberly Grenzbach, also known as Kimberly, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, methaqualone, to Beverage Investigator M. Freese, on the licensed premises. Count 21- On or about February 3, 1984, Theresa Yerby, also known as Brandy, did unlawfully possess, sell, and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Florida Statute 893.03, cannabis, to Beverage Investigator B. Ashley, on the licensed premises. Count 24 - On or about the below listed dates and times, entertainers Cody, Cherie, Valerie, Kimberly, Kim and Gayla, while actively engaged as dancers on the licensed premises, did unlawfully beg or solicit, patrons, customers or visitors, Beverage Investigators B. Ashley, D. O'steen and M. Freese to purchase beverages for the entertainers. NO. DATE APPROX. TIME EMPLOYEE VICTIM 1 4-6-83 10:00 P.M. CODY, dancer O'STEEN 2 4-6-83 11:45 P.M. CODY, dancer O'STEEN 3 1-6-84 8:00 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 4 1-6-84 8:50 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 5 1-17-84 8:50 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 6 2-3-84 10:15 P.M. CHERIE, dancer FREESE 7 2-3-84 10:30 P.M. GAYLA, dancer ASHLEY 8 2-3-84 11:00 P.M. KIMBERLY, dancer FREESE 9 2-7-84 7:15 P.M. KIM, barmaid ASHLEY 10 2-7-84 7:30 P.M. VALERIE, dancer ASHLEY 11 2-7-84 11:20 P.M. KIM, barmaid FREESE The transaction referred o in Count I above, occurred on the evening of March 9, 1983. On that particular evening, Deputy D. Patton entered the licensed premises with too other undercover officers and was approached by a dancer named Theresa White. Ms. white and Officer Patton began talking and during the course of the conversation, Ms. White offered to obtain some Valium for Deputy Patton. Officer Patton indicated that he would be interested in purchasing some valium and Ms. White then left him and was seen talking with another dancer at the bar area. A short time later she came back and said there was none left at that time but that she was going to get some later in the evening. Approximately 1 1/2 hours later, she returned to Officer Patton and indicated that she had obtained the diazepan. Officer Patton paid her $5.00 and she gave four diazepan (Valium) tablets to Officer Patton. The money and the tablets were passed under the table out of sight. The purchase of cocaine referred to in Count 10 above occurred on the evening of January 8, 1964. On that particular evening, Beverage Officers B. Ashley and M. Freese, went to the licensed premises and upon entering sat along the west wall of the main lounge area. They were joined by a dancer named Kimberly Grenzbach. They had previously discussed buying some cocaine from Kimberly Grenzbach. Shortly after they arrived, Kimberly and Officer Freese went into the back room of the lounge. The Strip Ahoy Lounge is built somewhat in the shape of a ship with the bow pointing toward the north. In the northern most portion of the lounge is located an office and a dressing room separated by a wall. Just outside the office is a square bar area with stools surrounding the bar. This bar is located in the main lounge portion of the bar which is a room approximately 63 feet long and 27 feet wide. In the southwest corner of the building is located the men's and women's restroom. The back room referred to above is a room located at the southeast corner of the lounge with a doorway leading into the main lounge. This back room is used for table or lap dancing. When Officer Freese and Kimberly went into the back room, they sat at a table and Kimberly took two triangular shaped plastic baggies containing cocaine out of her purse and handed them to Freese. She made no attempt to conceal these baggies. Freese then examined the baggies and handed her $100. The money was handed to her above the table and in the open. The total purchase price of the 2 grams of cocaine was $200 and Freese told Kimberly that Ashley had the other $100. Kimberly and Freese them returned to a large lounge area and sat next to Ashley who then gave the additional $100 to Kimberly. On the evening of January 9, 1984, Officer Freese was in the Strip Ahoy Lounge and went into the back room with Kimberly to examine some cocaine she was proposing to sell him. After entering the back room, they sat at a table and Kimberly took two small plastic baggies of cocaine out of her purse and handed them to Freese. Freese then examined the baggies and said they looked short to him. About that time Cherie Webber and her ex-boyfriend came into the back room and sat at a table. Kimberly then said "Cherie would know if anyone would" whether the baggies were short. Kimberly and Freese then walked over to Cherie's table and Kimberly handed the two baggies to Cherie, who held them up and examined them. Cherie said they looked short to her and she then handed them to her boyfriend who examined them and said it looked like about $60 worth to him. On the evening of January 12, 1984, Officers Ashley and Freese returned to the Strip Ahoy and made the drug purchases referred to in Counts 12, 13, and 14 discussed above. Prior to entering the lounge that evening, the two officers had made arrangements to buy cocaine from Kimberly Grenzbach. After they entered the lounge, they sat and waited for Kimberly and were approached by another dancer named Cherie Webber. Cherie walked by and asked if they wanted any "coke." Coke is a street term or slang for cocaine. Freese and Ashley told her they had already made arrangements to buy some from Kimberly. Cherie then said that she had hers with her now and Freese asked her about the quality of the coke she had. She responded that hers was always good quality. Cherie then sat down and agreed to sell Freese a half gram and said she needed to go into the bathroom because she had a large bag in her purse and she didn't want the small baggies to fall on the fiber when she opened her purse. She went to the bathroom and returned a short time later and sat next to Freese. Ashley was seated on the other side of Freese and observed Cherie hand a small, clear plastic baggie of cocaine to Freese. Freese then handed $50 to Cherie. After completing the purchase from Cherie, Freese went into the back room with Kimberly. They sat at a table and Kimberly handed him two plastic baggies containing cocaine. He held them up and examined them very carefully because of the problem he had on January 9. He tapped the baggies as he examined them and then selected one of the two baggies. He then handed $100 to Kimberly and told her she would have to talk to Ashley about the other gram of cocaine. Handing over the cocaine and the cash was done openly and not concealed. Later, on the evening of January 12, 1984, Freese and Ashley were approached by Kimberly, who walked up and told Ashley she had his cocaine. Ashley then went into the back room with Kimberly and sat at a table. Kimberly handed a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine to Ashley. Ashley held it up at eye level and examined it and then handed cash to Kimberly. There were other patrons and dancers in the room at the time. After purchasing the cocaine from Kimberly, Freese had spoken to Cherie once again and told her that Ashley wanted another half gram. When Ashley rejoined Freese, they left the bar to obtain more money and returned after midnight. While sitting in the back room with a dancer named Brandy, Ashley was approached by Cherie who walked up and asked if he wanted the half gram. She took a large baggie out of her purse. The large baggie contained several small baggies. Ashley then told Brandy she would have to move so he could get some money out of his pocket. He handed $50 to Cherie and she handed him a small baggie containing cocaine. This transaction was openly viewed by Brandy, Kimberly Grenzbach, and Officer Freese. This purchase is referred to in Count 15 above. The purchase discussed in Count 16 above occurred on the evening of January 13, 1984. Prior to going to the Strip Ahoy, Officer Freese had telephoned Kimberly and made arrangements to buy some "gorilla biscuits" which is slang for Quaaludes or methaqualone. After entering the lounge Kimberly walked up to Freese and said she had the Quaaludes. They then went into the back room and sat at a table. Kimberly was working as a dancer this evening and when they sat down, another dancer named Nellie was performing a lap dance for a patron at the next table. Kimberly handed Freese a clear cellophane packet containing 6 capsules of methaqualone. Freese paid her $24. There was no attempt to conceal the transfer of the cash or the methaqualone. On January 17, 1984, Officers Freese and Ashley returned to the licensed premises. They had previously arranged to buy some methaqualone from Kimberly Grenzbach. Shortly after arriving, Freese went into the back room with Kimberly where he purchased three Quaaludes (methaqualone capsules). Prior to paying Kimberly the agreed $12 price, Officer Freese examined the capsules. The cash and capsules were exchanged in open view with no attempt to conceal the exchanges. After completing the transaction with Freese, Kimberly returned to the main lounge area where Ashley was waiting. She took Ashley into the back room where she took a clear cellophane cigarette packet containing 3 capsules of methaqualone out of her purse and handed them to Ashley. Ashley then handed her $12 cash. There was no attempt by either of them to conceal the transfer of the drugs or cash. Officer Freese returned to the licensed premises on January 28, 1984, and made the drug purchase referred to in Count 20 above. Freese had previously phoned Kimberly Grenzbach and arranged to buy 25 methaqualone capsules. When he entered the licensed premises, Freese sat next to the west wall in the main lounge area. He was reined by Kimberly Grenzbach, who told him she had the Quaaludes. She said she would have to go into the dressing room and get them out of the locker. She left and returned a short time later and sat next to Freese. She placed a clear plastic baggie containing the 25 methaqualone capsules on the bench seat between them. Freese picked up the bag and looked at the capsules. Someone walking by at that moment could have seen the bag and capsules. Freese then handed Kimberly $100 in cash. On the evening of February 1, 1984, Officers Freese and Ashley were again in the licensed premises. At one point Officer Freese observed Kimberly Grenzbach talking with a gentleman seated at the bar. Kimberly left the man and walked over to Freese. She said the man at the bar had asked her to go in the back room and dance for him and snort some cocaine. Later, Freese and Kimberly went into the back room and sat at a table. They observed a dancer named Nellie come into the back room with the gentleman that Kimberly had previously been talking to at the bar. Nellie and the man sat at a table across the room from Freese. Freese observed the man take something out of his pocket, pour it on the table and line it up on the table. Kimberly said the man was going to snort coke with Nellie. The man then bent ever the table and made a loud snorting noise. Nellie then bent over the table and made a loud snorting noise. While this was occurring, Officer Ashley had come into the back room to look for Freese. When Ashley entered, Kimberly said, "Hey go over there and tell them you are a cop." Ashley observed Nellie and her male companion lining up a white powder on the table and then heard and observed a loud sniffing of the powder. This is typically the way cocaine is snorted or sniffed. Although the lights were fairly dim, there was sufficient light to observe people completely across the room. While on the licensed premises, Officer Ashley observed numerous other patrons and customers make drug purchases in the lounge. On the first three drug purchases made by Ashley, the dancer selling the drugs initiated the discussion and offered to sell drugs prior to any inquiry about drugs by Ashley. The Strip Ahoy is a topless bar and during the dates discussed above, the women involved in the drug purchases were working as dancers at the lounge. Each of the dancers was required to sign a contract before coming to work at the lounge. They were not paid a salary but danced solely for tips. They received no benefits such as workmen's compensation or Social Security from the Respondent. The contracts (see Respondent's composite Exhibit 2A through 2H) stated that the dancers were of three dances on a stage in an order established by Carl, the doorman. Carl Stone, the doorman and manager, would in the evenings, use a microphone and sound system to inform each dancer when it was her time to dance. While they were not dancing on the stage, the dancers would sit with patrons and perform table or lap dances for them in the back room. The lounge retained the right to approve or disapprove of a particular dancer's dance routine. Carl Stone supervised the dancers, and along with the owners, had the right to fire any dancer. Patrons, at least in part, came to the lounge to see the dancers perform. The lounge decided which dancers worked days and which dancers worked at night. Each dancer was given a copy of the House Rules and a copy was posted in the dressing room. These rules provided: Keep yourself well groomed at all times. Have attractive attire to wear when not performing. No Husbands, Boyfriends, ETC! Allowed while working. No one is to frequent club during off hours. No smoking or drinking while on stage. Only one girl on the stage at a time. No talking while on stage performing. Do not leave club except in street clothes. No sitting on stage bar. No more than two Ladies in dressing room at a time. (Except during beginning or ending of shift.) Any Dancer threatening another will be dismissed. Do not engage in any act which could be considered Lewd or Lascivious. Any Dancer stealing from a customer or other employees will be dismissed and prosecuted. Anyone suspected of Using, Buying or Selling of Drugs will be dismissed immediately. NO LOUD TALKING OR SHOUTING IN ROOM. KEEP YOUR VOICES DOWN. NO WHISTLING!! The individual who was responsible for the management and supervision of the club in the evenings from 7:00 p.m. to closing time at 2:00 a.m. was Carl Stone. He controlled the conduct of the dancers. Carl Stone was employed by the lounge as a salaried employee from April 1983 to August 26, 1983. In August, 1983, Carl Stone was also required to enter into a contract which stated he was an independent contractor and not entitled to a salary or other benefits. He was subject to the supervision, orders, advise, and direction of Respondent and was to provide management of the exotic dancers. Mr. Stone performed the same function and duties after this agreement as he did before the agreement was executed. When the owners were absent from the lounge at night, Carl was the sole person in charge. He worked at the door and collected the cover charge from 7:00 p.m. until 1:15 a.m. The first eight months of operation, Tom Whitaker was in the club almost every night. However, the last four months of operation, he generally did not come into the club until midnight or 1:00 a.m. On Friday and Saturday nights, there were two waitresses in the lounge. On other nights there was only one waitress. The waitresses were responsible for serving drinks in the lounge area and the back room and were the persons responsible for checking on the activities of the dancers in the back room on a regular basis. The back room could not be observed from the bar area, the office, or the entrance area. The door of the office has a two-way mirror which permits the owners to observe most of the main lounge from the office. During the year 1983, the owners gave polygraph exams on two occasions to all employees. One waitress, named Elizabeth Chader, had previously worked as a dancer and was fired after failing the polygraph on two questions relating to money and knowledge of drug activity on the licensed premises. This woman was also known as Luwanda and is the individual who sold drugs referred to in Count 7 discussed above. One of the owners, Jack Leverett, was questioned by the police about this dancer some time after she was fired and he gave them all the information he had. Dancers were not considered employees and were only polygraphed if a specific complaint was received. No dancers were polygraphed regarding drug activity. One dancer was fired after a bartender caught her with a needle in her arm in the restroom and reported it to the owners. Carl fired one dancer named Nikki after he observed her erratic behavior and found needle tracks on her arm. On at least two occasions, the owners called the Pinellas Park Police Department regarding suspected drug activity by patrons in the club. No such calls were made about any of the dancers at the club. When the club initially opened, a lot of "bikers" or motorcycle gang members frequented the club. The owners used a strict dress code and discouragement to eliminate these types of patrons from the club. The main lounge area and back room are dimly lit with candles on each table. The stage in the main lounge has lights in the floor and running red lights above. There are also lights in the bar area. The dim lighting makes it more difficult to observe the activities of dancers and patrons in the bar. The number of dancers in the club varied from 6 to 10 per shift. Typically, over an entire shift between 100 to 150 patrons would come into the club.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations as charged in the Notice to Show Cause and suspending Beverage License No. 82-661 for a period of nine (9) months and imposing a civil penalty of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1984, 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 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph F. MeDermott, Esq. 544 First Avenue North Division of Administrative St. Petersburg, Florida Michael N. Athanason, Esq. 500-First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 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
