Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 39-651, Series 4-COP, which applies to its business known as Library Lounge, located at 10924 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Tampa Police Department Detective Robert Ulriksen was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity during November and December, 1980. On November 30, he purchased three grams of cocaine from the dancer-employee Lila Colvert. The purchase was made openly and involved at least one other person who gave Colvert the packet which was later identified as cocaine. Ulriksen paid Colvert $25 for the packet. Tests performed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Laboratory (FDLE) estab1ished that the substance purchased by Ulriksen was, in fact, cocaine. Ulriksen purchased three purported Quaalude tablets from the dancer- employee Barbara Ann Smith for ten dollars during a visit to the licensed premises on December 2, 1980. Tests performed by FDLE established that the tablets were Quaaludes (methaqualone) Ulriksen again visited the licensed premises on December 5, 1980. On this occasion he purchased three tablets from the dancer-employee Lila Colvert, which she represented as Quaaludes. FDLE tests established that these tablets were Quaaludes. On December 7, 1980, Ulriksen was again in the licensed premises. On that occasion he purchased four tablets, that were later determined to be quaaludes by FDLE. He purchased these tablets for $12 from the dancer-employee Barbara Ann Smith. Ulriksen visited the licensed premises on December 9, 1980, and purchased four tablets which were later determined by FDLE to be Quaaludes. Ulriksen purchased these tablets from the dancer-employee Brenda Sue Parr for $15. On December 12, 1980, Ulriksen was in the licensed premises and discussed a purchase of quaaludes with the dancer-employee Tammy Yates. She took Ulriksen to the dancers' dressing room where she removed five Quaaludes from her purse. Ulriksen paid her $15 for these tablets, which were determined to be Quaaludes by FDLE. The dressing room transaction was observed by the manager, Gaskins, who told Ulriksen to leave. The testimony of FDLE personnel and Tampa Police Department employees who secured the substances purchased by Ulriksen established that this evidence was properly controlled throughout the investigation. There was no indication whatsoever of tampering or other improper handling of the substances. In mitigation of these charges, Respondent established that it has cooperated with the Tampa Police Department in the investigation of its employees and third persons who were involved in the drug trafficking. Subsequent to the arrest of these employees, Respondent adopted preemployment screening procedures and currently has no female entertainers employed in the licensed premises.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of all charges contained in the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint and suspend Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 39-651 for a period of thirty days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1982 at 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 19th day of July, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 14, 2012, and, if so, what penalties, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PTL Associates, Inc., d/b/a 7 Eleven Store No. 32599A (PTL), is a convenience store located at 4401 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33912. Lucia D'Costa is the sole shareholder of PTL. Since October 12, 2011, and at all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages under license number BEV 4604710, Series 2APS. According to a document titled "Record of Inspection-- Official Notice," on July 19, 2012, an employee of the Respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage individual after checking the individual's identification. The document advised the Respondent that a follow-up compliance check would take place within the subsequent 12 weeks. The Petitioner took no disciplinary action against the Respondent based on the July 19, 2012, compliance check. The Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding related to the license referenced herein. On August 2, 2012, the Petitioner conducted an undercover compliance check as a follow-up to a compliance check done on July 19, 2012, to determine whether the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underage individuals. The compliance check was performed by two of the Petitioner's agents, Jennifer Nash and David Foraker, with the assistance of a 16- year-old female identified as Investigative Aide FT0205 (IA). On August 2, the IA entered the store accompanied by Agent Nash, while Agent Foraker remained in the vehicle outside the store. Ms. D'Costa was present in the store, behind the counter and operating multiple store sales registers. Two employees were also present, occupied with various cleaning tasks. The IA walked to the beverage cooler and withdrew a 16 ounce Coors Light, carried it to the counter area, and stood in line to pay for the beer. Ms. D'Costa took the beer from the IA, scanned the beer into the sales register, and completed the transaction. Ms. D'Costa did not ask the IA to produce any form of identification to verify the IA's age. While the transaction occurred, Agent Nash observed the AI and Ms. D'Costa, initially from inside the store, and then from outside while looking through large windows on the storefront. Although while in the store Agent Nash spoke to Ms. D'Costa to ask for driving directions, Agent Nash did not interfere with the sale of beer to the IA. There is no evidence that Agent Nash prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA, or that she interfered in the transaction in any way. Some, but not all, of the Respondent's cash registers have software to prompt a register operator to verify a customer's age during the sale of an alcoholic beverage. When Ms. D'Costa sold the beer to the IA, she used a register that did not prompt the sales clerk to verify the customer's age. Ms. D'Costa testified that she does not usually operate the sales registers and that the clerks are usually responsible for the counter operation. She testified that, at the time of the compliance check on August 2, 2012, the two employees present were cleaning the store in anticipation of a monthly inspection, and, therefore, Ms. D'Costa was working alone at the sales registers. The inspection referenced by Ms. D'Costa is a routine monthly inspection conducted by corporate representatives at a time unknown to the licensee until the representatives arrive. It is reasonable to presume, given the nature of the inspection, that store cleaning would be an ongoing obligation of a licensee. The testimony fails to suggest that a licensee is exempt from compliance with laws prohibiting underage alcohol sales when employees are busy. After completing the purchase, the IA left the store and delivered the beer to Agent Foraker. The Petitioner's agents then went into the store to notify Ms. D'Costa that the transaction had taken place and to deliver to her a "Record of Inspection--Official Notice" and a "Notice to Appear." Ms. D'Costa testified at the hearing that she believed the IA to be at least 30 years of age on August 2, 2012. The IA participated in seven undercover compliance checks on August 2, 2012. The Respondent was the only store that did not check the IA's identification during a compliance check. Ms. D'Costa also testified that the franchise agreement could be breached by a suspension of the alcoholic beverage license. The franchise agreement was not offered into evidence at the hearing. The Petitioner has a written policy of not utilizing children or other relatives of the Petitioner's employees as IAs. At the time the compliance check was conducted on August 2, 2012, the Petitioner was apparently unaware that the IA was related to an employee of the Petitioner. After the Petitioner learned of the relationship, the IA was not again utilized in making compliance checks. The evidence fails to establish that the relationship between the IA and an employee of the Petitioner prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA without checking whether the IA was of legal age to purchase alcohol.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order suspending the license referenced herein for a period of seven days and imposing a fine of $1,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Fier, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Joseph Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen Douglas, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael G. Mandeville, d/b/a The Sugar Shack (Mandeville), is licensed under the Beverage Law, license number 27-1311, series 2-COP, for the premises known as The Sugar Shack located at 11 East Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Mandeville has operated The Sugar Shack at that location under that license from July 1985 through the emergency suspension of the license and closing of the business on January 16, 1986. Previously, Mandeville was President, Secretary and Treasurer and 100 percent stockholder of Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., a licensee under the Beverage Law. On February 1, 1984, Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., entered into a Stipulation with Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), settling a Notice To Show Cause containing eight counts of solicitation of drinks and one count of conspiring to deliver a controlled substance. At the time, the licensee, Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., was doing business as The Sugar Shack at 720 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. Earlier the licensee Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., was doing business as Someplace Else at Highway 29 and Roberts Road in Pensacola, Florida. Mandeville was its Secretary and Treasurer and owned half of the stock issued by the corporate licensee. On July 29, 1982, the licensee Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Someplace Else, entered into a Stipulation with the Division settling a Notice To Show Cause containing twelve counts of solicitation of drinks and five counts of delivering a controlled substance. In the short time Mandeville's current license was being operated, he was aware of drug problems on the premises. Problems of this sort in approximately September 1985 caused Mandeville to be in contact with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, Narcotics Division. In order to help himself, Mandeville agreed to cooperate with the Sheriff's Office. Although Mandeville told officers in the Sheriff's Narcotics Division that he personally knew no drug users on the premises, he would have a part-time employed disk jockey named Darrel Able, who might have information, contact the Narcotics Division. Mandeville and his staff also had to fire several employees on suspicion of drugs, including a dancer named Margie. The Sugar Shack's premises consist of one large major room with a separate room for playing pool, separate dressing rooms, and men and ladies restrooms. The licensed, premises contain two stages for topless dancing performances, a booth for the disk jockeys and a large bar. It is not possible to see into the dressing rooms from the main room, from the bar or from the disk jockey booth. It is not possible to see the room containing the pool tables from the main room, the disk jockey booth, or the bar. Within the licensed premises, there are many tables where customers sit. During business hours of The Sugar Shack, there are topless dancers performing to loud music. Because of the loud music, it is difficult to hear normal conversations even among those sitting at one of the various tables in the licensed premises. Mandeville employs several people to assist him in the operation and maintenance of The Sugar Shack. During most of the business day, Mandeville is present at the licensed premises. When Mandeville is not present, his brother Steve is in charge of the licensed premises. When Steve Mandeville is not present, the assistant manager and doorman Russell Sapp is in the licensed premises and supervises them. When Sapp is not present, John Chiarito, an employed disk jockey, manages the licensed premises and supervises them. For most of the day, two or three of these people are present in the licensed premises and serve in a supervisory capacity. Additionally, Mandeville employs a day bartender named Helen Mabie, who functions in a supervisory capacity. Mandeville also employs other personnel including bartenders and waitresses who are in the licensed premises during business hours and are supposed to inform management of any violations of laws and rules they suspect. Mandeville himself is present at the licensed premises for approximately eight hours a day at various times between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Mandeville generally supervises the overall business operations of The Sugar Shack, including the hiring and firing of employees. Since Mandeville opened the licensed premises, he has announced a policy applicable to all employees prohibiting the possession of drugs in the licensed premises and the solicitation of drinks by employees. Generally, all employees, especially dancers, are required to sign statements agreeing to the policies. Rules implementing the policies are posted prominently in several locations within the licensed premises including the dancers' dressing rooms. However, the signs contain statements like: "there's a time & place for everything, please think before making your move"; "they are watching you know the law, they know you"; and "the law has the right to walk in this dressing room at any given second keep yourself & your friends out of trouble." Although the overall message of the signs and policies prohibit drugs and drink solicitation, the above unfortunately phrased parts of the signs might tend to imply a management attitude that those activities are acceptable as long as no employees are caught doing them. Mandeville has made it known to his employees that violation of the prohibition against drugs would result in termination, supposedly without giving anybody a second chance. Mandeville and his management staff have in fact fired several employees for violation of the prohibition against drugs on the licensed premises: Toni for smoking marijuana in the dressing room; Nicki for possession of prescription drugs not in a bottle; Margie for using and selling cocaine; and Nicole for suspicion of selling cocaine. According to Mandeville, even suspicion of violating the drug prohibition will result in termination, and there is not supposed to be a second chance for anyone. However, Margie was rehired after being terminated for violating the drug prohibition. In addition, Mandeville did not fire Margie a second time before his license was suspended and did not fire another dancer named Nicole until the first week of January 1986 although he suspected both of them of selling cocaine as early as December 19, 1985, when an undercover Escambia County Sheriff's Office narcotics deputy posing as a patron told him that Nicole had sold the deputy cocaine. Mandeville also made it known to his employees that patrons were supposed to be asked to leave the premises if they violated drug laws on the premises. If such a patron refused to leave, either they were to be forced to leave or law enforcement was to be notified. However, Mandeville did not ask the undercover deputy to leave on December 19, 1985, although the undercover deputy told Mandeville that he had bought cocaine from Nicole. Similarly, the same undercover deputy was not asked to leave by an employee named Sophia on December 27, 1985, when the deputy told Sophia that he had bought cocaine from Nicole. Mandeville or his managements staff conducts periodic unannounced searches of the dancers' lockers. These searches are conducted in the dancers' presence. Refusal to permit a locker search is grounds for termination, and two employees, one a dancer named Connie, were fired for refusal to allow a locker search. According to Mandeville, his management staff is supposed to periodically review with the employees the rules prohibiting drugs and drink solicitation. However, Mandeville does not follow up on the performance of his management staff and several understand their obligation to be only to go over the rules with the employees when one of the employees violates the rules. Only Dwight Sparks, the Sunday night manager, goes over the rules each night he works. Violation of the rule against drink solicitation, when detected, is supposed to result in termination. But there was no evidence that any employee has been fired for drink solicitation. Enforcement of this policy is not as strict as enforcement of the policy against drugs on the premises. Mandeville does not require his employees to subject themselves to a polygraph lie detector examination. He asks prospective employees for an oral history of employment but does not get it in writing and does not check the validity or quality of the references. Mandeville does not check for arrest records of his employees. On December 3, 1985, Officer Zeka of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity posing as a patron. Within minutes of entering the premises, Zeka was able to buy five capsules of cocaine from the employed dancer Nicole. Nicole and Zeka were sitting back to back in adjoining booths when the transaction took place. Nicole reached over the waist high back of the booths and placed the capsules on Zeka's table in exchange for $50. Because of the loud music, dark lighting, relatively cluttered table and the topless dancing performances attracting attention elsewhere, the transaction would have been difficult for anyone to detect who was not paying attention and trying to detect a drug transaction even though the transaction was not completely concealed. Zeka quickly counted the capsules and put them in his pocket. On December 4, 1985, Zeka bought from Nicole another three capsules of cocaine in a clear cellophane cigarette package wrapper for $50. The circumstances of the transaction were essentially the same as on December 3. Later on December 4, 1985, Zeka bought from Nicole another five capsules of cocaine for $50. The circumstances of this transaction also were the same as on December 3. As on December 3, Nicole placed the capsules on the table in front of Zeka who counted them and put them in his pocket. On December 5, 1985, Zeka again bought from Nicole five capsules of cocaine. Again, the circumstances were essentially the same as on December 3. As on December 3, Nicole placed the capsules on the table in front of Zeka who counted them and put them in his pocket. On December 26, 1985, Zeka was in the licensed premises and asked employed dancer Margie to sell him some cocaine. At first Margie was unable to because "her man," i.e., her source of drugs, was not around. Later she walked over to and embraced "her man," Darrel Able, who slipped a clear plastic bag containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine into the back of her g-string type panties. Margie returned to the table and put the bag on the table between Zeka and another undercover officer named Lewis. Somehow the bag opened, and some cocaine spilled on the table. Margie suggested they "do a line" from the cocaine spilled on the table and took a straw out of one of the glasses on the table. When Zeka and Lewis affected to warn her not to be so open about it in order to preserve their cover, Margie told them not to worry because it was done all the time. However, it was not proved that Margie was not either joking or intoxicated, and no credence can be given to her statement that cocaine was used at the tables in the licensed premises. As before, the licensed premises were dark and noisy at the time and the attention was directed to the dance stage. Although the transaction was not completely concealed it still would not have been easy to detect. On December 27, 1985, an employed dancer named June openly handed Lewis a marijuana cigarette she said she had been given as a tip and invited Lewis to smoke it outside. Again, although June made no attempt to conceal what she was doing, it would have been difficult to detect exactly what she was doing and that she had a marijuana cigarette. Also on December 27, 1985, Zeka asked employed dancer Nicole to sell him some more cocaine. Nicole had none and had to leave the licensed premises to obtain some. She put on her street clothes, left, returned and handed Zeka four capsules of cocaine in a concealed manner. On December 31, 1985, a man named John Carroll sold cocaine to Zeka's confidential informant twice within 20 minutes. Both times the confidential informant walked over to Carroll, who was standing by the bar. The first time Mandeville himself was seated five bar stools away from Carroll. Both times the confidential informant persuaded Carroll to sell the cocaine, reached into his front shirt pocket to get the cocaine and returned to Zeka who was approximately 15 feet away. In a concealed manner, the cocaine was handed to Zeka, who held the clear plastic bag containing the cocaine up by the corner, looked at it and placed it in his pocket. Again, although Mandeville was in a position to see the first transaction if he had been paying attention and watching for it, the evidence did not prove that he actually saw the transaction. It was not proved that Carroll was an employee, as opposed to a patron, of Mandeville. On January 13, 1985, Lewis bought a half gram of cocaine from employed dancer Margie for $50. Margie delivered the cocaine in a concealed manner that would have avoided any detection. In addition to the activity involving controlled substances described above, Mandeville's employees on numerous occasions solicited drinks from Lewis as follows: Sophia December 19, 1985 Liz December 19, 1985 Angela December 19, 1985 Debbie December 19, 1985 Candy December 30, 1985 Judy December 30, 1985 Chastity December 30, 1985 Candy December 30, 1985 Margie December 26, 1985 June December 27, 1985 Cindy December 27, 1985 Candy December 27, 1985 Peggy December 27, 1985 Mandeville never asked the Division for assistance in, or suggestions for, supervising the licensed premises so as to control or eliminate illegal drug violations and drink solicitations. Rather, the evidence is that Mandeville offered to cooperate with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to "help himself and them" in September 1985 and later in late December 1985 or early January 1986. In essence, as previously mentioned, Mandeville put the Sheriff's Office in contact with Darrell Able and, on one occasion in early January 1986, telephoned the Sheriff's Office to relate that Able supposedly thought he was going to be able to set up a drug deal for the Sheriff's Office. Neither Mandeville nor Able ever re-contacted the Sheriff's Office. Weighing the totality of the evidence, it is found that Mandeville did not supervise the premises and his employees in a reasonably diligent manner under the circumstances. Mandeville was aware from past experience of the problem of drugs in an establishment like the licensed premises in general and in the licensed premises themselves in particular. Mandeville announced adequate policies and placed some management techniques in effect to implement the policies. However, Mandeville did not adequately follow up and did not know that his staff was not following all of the techniques. They were not, for example, regularly reviewing the rules prohibiting drugs and drink solicitation with the employees, and the employees did not understand that they were to report all suspicion of violation of the rules by both employees and patrons to the management. Mandeville himself failed to follow his own procedures by rehiring Margie and failing to fire Margie and Nicole immediately upon receiving information or knowledge of their drug use and dealing at least by December 19, 1985. Not only did Mandeville and his staff not follow all the procedures that he had in place, Mandeville did not seek the assistance and suggestions of the Division for additional management techniques. He did not improve the lighting in the licensed premises, did not polygraph his employees and did not check the background of prospective employees. A combination of the laxity of Mandeville and his staff in enforcing the procedures he had in place and Mandeville's failure to adopt more effective available procedures that he should have known were required under the circumstances proximately caused the employee violations on the premises. As for the drink solicitation violations, Mandeville's written policy against drink solicitation appears to be more honored in the breach. In addition to the thirteen violations within eleven days charged in this case, the two previous notices to show cause against a licensee in which Mandeville had substantial interest and control contained a total of twenty counts of drink solicitation which were settled by stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Alcoholic Beverage License Number 27-1311, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Michael G. Mandeville, d/b/a The Sugar Shack, 11 Eastfair field Drive, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, on all the grounds alleged in the Notice To Show Cause in this case except paragraphs (1)g. and (2)g. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0203 Rulings On Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Covered by Finding 1. 2.-5. Covered by Findings 16.-19., respectively. 6. Covered by Finding 10. 7.-8. Covered by Findings 20-21, respectively. 9. Covered by Finding 11. 10-11. Covered by Findings 22-23., respectively. Covered by Finding 25. Rejected as cumulative. Covered by Finding 26. 15-16. Covered by Findings 2-3., respectively. Covered by Finding 27. Covered by Findings 8-14. 19-20. Covered by Findings 6, 10 and 13, to the extent necessary. Covered by Findings 8 and 10, to the extent necessary. Whether Mandeville has fired June is irrelevant since the Sugar Shack has been closed since the license was suspended. Covered by Finding 13. Covered by Findings 23 and 24. Covered by Findings 4, 7, and 27. Rulings On Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Covered by Finding 1. 2-4. Covered by Findings 5-7, respectively. 5. Covered by Findings 15, 8, and 9, to the extent necessary. 6-9. Covered by Finding 10, to the extent necessary. (The evidence was not clear exactly who fired the various employees but that is not necessary or relevant). 10. Covered by Finding 1. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural history. 14-17. Covered by Findings 16-19., respectively. 18. Covered by Findings 11 and 28. (There was no persuasive evidence that Mandeville "conducted an investigation concerning the activities of Nicole" or "obtained additional information" or that Mandeville fired Nicole "as soon as the Respondent verified this information"). 19-22. Covered by Findings 20-23, respectively. Covered by Finding 23. Rejected as not proven by the weight of the totality of the evidence. See Finding 11. Also, he certainly would not have been in trouble if caught by Nicole, Margie or June. Covered by Finding 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 27-37. Covered by Finding 26, to the extent necessary. 38-40. Rejected as incomprehensible. See also paragraphs 41-49. below. 41-49. Covered by Findings 8-14. There was no evidence that any employee ever has been fired for solicitation of drinks. The evidence was not clear which individual or group of individuals actually fired all of the individuals listed in Finding 10. Their identity is not necessary or relevant. 50. Covered by Findings 8, 13. and 14. 51-52. Covered by Finding 12. (There was only evidence that two employees were fired for refusing to allow a locker search). Covered by Findings 4 and 27. Accepted and covered by Finding 23 and the absence 55.Accepted and covered by the absence of any finding that they did. Covered by Findings 16-23. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58-59. Accepted and covered by the absence of any finding that they did. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra P. Stockwell, Esouire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Griffith, Esguire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronugh Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension and Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed alcoholic beverage establishments. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent, Café Iguana, Inc., doing business as Café Iguana, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-01868 which is a series 4-COP license. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Iguana was located at 8505 Mills Drive, D-75, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the following persons were officers and/or shareholders of the Respondent corporation: Mark Vasu, Shannon Miller, David Lageschulte, and Gerald Joe Delaney. Prior to the issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension which is at issue in this proceeding, the Department conducted an investigation of alleged acts of recurring illegal narcotic activity on the licensed premises. In furtherance of such investigation Special Agent Bartelt, Detective Fernandez, and Detective Robertson entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity for the purpose of purchasing illegal substances. In this regard Special Agent Bartelt observed the two detectives as they attempted to acquire illegal substances from persons within the licensed premises. The investigation at Iguana began on March 15, 1997, and was concluded on June 12, 1997. In total, the detectives made seven purchases of a substance which was later tested and determined to contain cocaine. Respondent did not object to, nor dispute the accuracy of, the lab reports received into evidence which confirmed the substances contained cocaine. As to the purchase which occurred on March 15, 1997, Detective Fernandez approached a female bathroom attendant and represented that she wanted "to get hooked up." According to Detective Fernandez this type of language is commonly used to ask for illegal drugs. She sought cocaine, by implication in the language of such transactions. The attendant referred her to an individual known in this record as "Anthony" who was the men's restroom attendant. Standing in the doorway to the men's restroom, Detective Fernandez exchanged $20.00 for approximately one-half gram of cocaine. The cocaine was in a clear plastic zip-lock style bag that was no larger than two inches by two inches. Upon receipt of the bag, Detective Fernandez placed it in her pocket and left the restroom area. All of the transactions later described were completed in the same manner. Detective Fernandez made no effort to be noticed by the club's management. She was not conspicuous in the purchase of the illegal substance. Instead, she made every effort to mimic her perception of a drug transaction. The next purchase occurred on April 4, 1997. On this date, Detective Fernandez went back to Anthony and again requested drugs. She was told to wait. Approximately forty-five minutes later she returned to the doorway area adjacent to the men's room. At that time other females were also waiting for Anthony. After transferring $25.00 to the attendant, Detective Fernandez received approximately one-half gram of cocaine. During this purchase, Detective Fernandez believes Respondent's employees may have walked past to use the restroom but could not verify that anyone observed her transaction. Additionally, Detective Fernandez did not observe a sale of a similar type to the other females in line at the restroom corridor. On April 12, 1997, Detective Fernandez went to Anthony and asked him if she could "get a half." Noteworthy on this date was the fact that Detective Fernandez went inside the men's room to make the transaction. During her stay in the restroom she saw a bartender and a security person who were using the facility. Neither asked why she was inside the men's restroom. Neither interfered with her discussion with Anthony. Instead, Anthony introduced her to a white male who was using the telephone in the room who is identified in this record as "Juan." Anthony reported that Juan was "my man." In exchange for $40.00 Anthony delivered approximately one gram of cocaine to Detective Fernandez. There is no evidence that the bartender or the security person observed any of the transaction which took place. On May 9, 1997, Detective Fernandez again went to Respondent's club and sought illegal drugs. This time she asked a bartender how to "hook up." He referred her to the restroom. Anthony was not at the men's room, so she went to the female attendant known in this record as "Rica." Inside the female's restroom Rica exchanged approximately one-half gram of cocaine for $25.00. On May 15, 1997, Detective Fernandez purchased one-half gram of cocaine from Anthony for $30.00. Later, during the early morning hours of May 16, 1997, Detective Fernandez made a second purchase from Anthony. Although there were other patrons of the bar within the restroom, there is no evidence that any of them witnessed either of these transactions. The final purchase by Detective Fernandez was on June 11, 1997. On this date she contacted Rica and again sought to purchase drugs. She handed Rica $30.00, and the attendant left the restroom and returned a short while later with approximately one-half gram of cocaine. Although there were numerous patrons entering and exiting the facility, there is no evidence that anyone observed Detective Fernandez receive the bag of cocaine. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Iguana was a popular club which was well attended on the nights of this investigation. The audio system for the club, although especially dominating on the dance floor, distributed music throughout the licensed premises. In this regard it is uncertain if any of the conversations between the undercover officer and the parties selling drugs could be easily overheard. As to the lighting system for the club, at all times material to this investigation, lighting would have been set at its lowest levels of illumination throughout the licensed premises. Consequently, only the restrooms would have been well- lit. As a result it is uncertain as to how visible transactions occurring outside the restrooms would have been. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the restroom attendants were not employees of Iguana or its management company but were contract personnel through a third party valet service operated by David Cook. Iguana paid Cook to provide restroom attendants. This contract was terminated on June 13, 1997, when Respondent learned of the attendants' alleged involvement in the illegal transactions described above. Further, Iguana notified Cook of its intention to assist in the prosecution of such individuals. Iguana is managed by a company known as Chameleon Concepts. In order to effectively identify and minimize potential losses for Iguana, Chameleon Concepts contracted with a company whose purpose was to audit operations to ensure the overall integrity of the business operation. This auditor, a forensic fraud examiner, was to identify losses or potential losses due to fraud, embezzlement, policy or procedure violations, or other improprieties. Thus, effective October 1, 1996, Iguana was voluntarily being reviewed by an independent company, with an on-going, monthly retainer, to determine if there were any potential improprieties. The auditor for the company, John Capizzi, found no violations of policy, alcoholic beverage rules, or regulations. Prior to the investigation of this case, Iguana employees were required to participate in responsible vendor programs. Prior to the investigation of this case, Iguana managers were required to participate in responsible vendor programs. Iguana management routinely conducts meetings wherein responsible vendor practices are discussed. Iguana and Chameleon Concepts have developed written employee handbooks and policies which specifically admonish employees regarding illegal substances on the licensed premises. Iguana employees and managers are instructed to advise the management of any suspected illegal substances on the licensed premises. In the past, Iguana has participated in campaigns designed to retain false identification used by suspected underage drinkers to gain entrance to licensed premises. The testimony of Mr. Vasu regarding efforts of the company to comply with all rules and regulations of the Department has been deemed credible and persuasive regarding Iguana's position on illegal drug transactions. Management would not condone or allow illegal drug sales if it were known to them. None of the officers or shareholders of Iguana were aware of the illegal drug transactions occurring on the licensed premises. The only Iguana employee alleged to have been connected to a sale was one incident wherein a bartender referred Detective Fernandez to the restroom. Cocaine is a controlled substance, the sale of which is prohibited by Florida law. None of the purchases described herein were of such a nature or were so conspicuously transacted that a reasonable person would have known illegal sales were taking place. None of the patrons of the club who testified for Respondent were aware that illegal drug sales took place within the licensed premises. The detective making the purchases did not act in a flagrant or open manner. Moreover, the detective did not attempt to verify whether or not bartenders, security guards, or managers employed by Iguana were aware of the restroom attendants' illegal activities. At best, one bartender knew to refer the detective to the restroom. In addition to selling illegal drugs, the restroom attendants handed out towels to club patrons and offered for sale personal toiletry items at tables maintained within the restroom. For a club patron to have money to purchase such items or tip the attendant would be a reasonable assumption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Emergency Order of Suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Chadroff, Terminello & Terminello 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause dated June 16, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns an alcoholic beverage license, license number 5803205, for a business known as Tiffany & Suzy Q's Fun and Munch located in Apopka, Florida. Mr. Bowers, Respondent's husband, does not own the subject business or license, and may not as he has prior felony convictions within the last past five years that preclude his eligibility to own or hold an alcoholic beverage license. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Bowers was on the licensed premises acting as the manager or other person in charge of the business activities. Acting on information from a confidential source, the FDLE commenced an investigation of several vendors rumored to be involved in illegal foodstamp activity. FDLE retained several confidential informants (CI) to offer foodstamps for sale at substantially reduced prices. One of the confidential sources, Ella Mae Davis, posed as the seller at Respondent's licensed store. Acting in concert with another CI, Ms. Davis went to the store and offered foodstamps for sale to Respondent's husband. Ms. Davis alleged that the foodstamps had been stolen by her boyfriend, and that she wanted to sell them. Her instructions were to make Mr. Bowers (or other person at the store if there had been another) aware that the stamps were illegal, and to determine if a sale would be possible. On the first occasion, Mr. Bowers was receptive to the offer made by Ms. Davis and the CI. Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers go into a backroom at the store with the other CI who had possession of the foodstamps. When the CI came out, and the two women left the premises, the CI had the money received in exchange for the foodstamps. On a second visit to the store, Ms. Davis met Mr. Bowers who introduced her to a second male. Ms. Davis observed a second exchange of foodstamps for cash with the second male. This transaction took place at the licensed premises. During each of the transactions at the licensed premises, Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers' physical proximity to the exchange of foodstamps for cash. On each occasion the rate of exchange for the foodstamps was approximately fifty percent of the face value of the stamps. The Respondent was not on the licensed premises on either occasion when foodstamps were exchanged by Ms. Davis or her partner CI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking Respondent's beverage license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4808 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Para Bowers, pro se 104 East 18th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulations of the parties, the documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ceola Virginia Cutliff is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-06844, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Night Shift, located at 6704 N.W. 18th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On or about September 18, 1987, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) Investigators R. Campbell, R. Thompson and C. Houston entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics task force investigation. An individual named "Frances" was on duty at the bar. The investigators observed Frances sell what appeared to be narcotics to several patrons on the licensed premises. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigator Houston approached Frances and asked to purchase narcotics. Frances and Investigator Houston then went to the rear of the bar where Frances sold 2 pieces of "crack" cocaine to Investigator Houston for $10.00. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Investigator Campbell asked Frances if he could purchase narcotics. Frances presented a piece of rock cocaine which Investigator Campbell purchased for $5.00. This transaction took place in plain view of other individuals in the licensed premises. Frances, upon making a sale, would take the money and give it to a black male called "Spider" a/k/a Arthur Dorsey. Spider would then retain the money. On September 19, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. On duty that night, was a black female known as "Josephine". Spider was also on the licensed premises positioned in the D.J.'s booth, apparently trying to fix a speaker. Houston and Thompson had observed a black male, named "Gary", exchanging an unknown substance for money with various individuals, immediately outside the licensed premises. Gary, upon receiving money in exchange for the unknown substance, would go into the licensed premises and hand the money to Spider. Later that evening, Investigator Houston noticed that Spider had a brown paper bag in his hand. Gary and Spider proceeded to the bathroom on the licensed premises. After exiting the bathroom, Gary left the premises and Spider went behind the bar and began counting a large amount of money onto the counter of the bar. Spider placed the money in his back pocket. Investigator Thompson then inquired whether Spider could sell him some crack cocaine. Spider acknowledged that he could and proceeded with Thompson to the rear of the bar, where Spider sold Thompson 20 pieces of rock cocaine for $100.00. On September 22, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. Bartender Josephine-was on duty at that time along with another black female known as "Niecey". When the investigators inquired as to the whereabouts of Spider, Niecey replied that "he went home to cook up the stuff because they were very low on supply." Niecey reiterated the above statement on numerous occasions when individuals would enter the bar searching for Spider. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Spider appeared on the licensed premises with a brown paper bag in his possession. Patrons that had been waiting outside the premises came inside and Niecey locked the doors to the front and rear exits of the bar. Spider went to the D.J.'s booth and pbured the contents of the paper bag onto the counter inside the booth. The bag contained approximately 200 small zip-lock bags containing suspected crack cocaine. The patrons who had been waiting outside for the arrival of Spider then proceeded to line up in front of the D.J.'s booth in order to make purchases. Niecey would take the money from the individual patrons and Spider would deliver the crack cocaine. Investigator Houston got in line and upon arriving at the booth, purchased 20 packets of crack cocaine from Spider in exchange for $100.00. These transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On September 23, 1987, Investigators Houston, Thompson and Campbell entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The barmaid on duty was Josephine. Spider was positioned in the D.J.'s booth making sales to patrons of what appeared to be crack cocaine. Investigator Campbell walked over to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase ten (10) pieces of crack cocaine from Spider. Approximately 200 zip-lock packets of suspected crack cocaine were positioned in front of Spider. Spider motioned for Campbell" to pick them out." Campbell then picked out ten (10) packets in exchange for $50.00 which he gave to Spider. This transaction occurred in plain view of other individuals on the licensed premises. Before leaving Spider went behind the bar, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, placed it inside his pants and exited the premises. On September 29, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The bartender on duty was Josephine. Shortly after the investigators arrived, Spider appeared on the premises and went behind the bar where he took a pistol from inside his pants and placed it under the bar counter. Spider then removed a brown paper bag from under the bar counter and went to the D.J. s booth. Investigator Thompson proceeded to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine. Spider reached into the bag and gave Investigator Thompson two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Investigator Campbell approached an unknown black male who Campbell had seen selling narcotics on prior occasions. Campbell made inquiries relative to the purchase of cocaine and the unknown black male indicated that he could sell Campbell crack cocaine. The unknown male then gave two five dollar ($5.00) pieces of crack cocaine to Investigator Campbell in exchange for $10.00. This transaction took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Shortly after the investigators arrived, they observed Spider on the premises selling crack cocaine to patrons from the D.J.'s booth. Subsequently, Investigator Thompson went to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine. In response thereto, Spider left the licensed premises and proceeded to a pickup truck parked outside. Spider then retrieved a brown paper bag from the vehicle, returned to Investigator Thompson and handed him twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent licensee admitted to being an absentee owner. The Respondent did not maintain payroll, employment or other pertinent business records. The licensee was aware that drugs were a major problem in the area surrounding the premises and that drug transactions were known to take place immediately outside of the licensed premises. The licensee did nothing to prevent the incursion of narcotics trafficking onto the licensed premises. The licensee, CeoIa Cutliff, is engaged to Arthur Dorsey. Ms. Cutliff gave Mr. Dorsey a key to the premises and knew or should have known that he was operating in the capacity of a manager on the licensed premises. Josephine, the bartender generally on duty, referred to Mr. Dorsey as "boss man" and Mr. Dorsey directed her activities in the licensed premises. Mr. Dorsey a/k/a Spider utilized the licensed premises as if they were his own and was operating in the capacity of a manager at the Club Night Shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's beverage license 23-06844, Series 2-COP, located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4482 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 2. (Petitioner has two paragraphs numbered 2) Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10, 11 & 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted). COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Scott Boundy, Esquire 901 E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Daniel Bosanko Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Barnell and Louise Evans held beverage license No. 62-01451-2-COP for premises located at 1313 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. They have held this beverage license since 1980. Following receipt of complaints regarding the sale and use of controlled substances, principally marijuana and cocaine, on the licensed premises, an undercover investigation of Foxy's Den was initiated. Keith B. Hamilton, Department of Law Enforcement (DLE) Investigator, visited Foxy's Den the evening of February 28, 1985, observed patrons smoking marijuana, purchased a $5.00 packet from a patron in the lounge of what was later tested and found to be marijuana, purchased paper to roll marijuana cigarettes from the barmaid after holding up the packet he had just purchased, and observed other transactions in what appeared to be the sale and use of marijuana on the licensed premises. Ira L. McQueen, another DLE Investigator, visited the licensed premises during the evening hours of March 21, 26, and 28 April 9, 10, 16, 18, 24, and 29 May 6, 9, 15, 21, and 22: June 20, 25, and 26: July 1, 8, 18, 23, and 29, 1985. During each of these visits he observed one or more of the following: Patrons smoking marijuana in plain view in the bar area patrons selling marijuana and cocaine to other patrons, including McQueen, in the bar area without much attempt at secrecy: bartenders and barmaids discussing the purchase of controlled substances with patrons and acting as intermediaries in those purchases packets of marijuana and money in exchange therefor passing between patrons in plain view of the bartender patrons obtaining change from the bartender, for example, a $20.00 bill, to purchase a nickel ($5.00) or dime ($10.00) packet of marijuana and McQueen being asked by the bartender if he, McQueen, was interested in buying marijuana or cocaine, and thereafter the bartender participating in the purchase of cocaine or marijuana by contributing money to the purchase and contacting the vendors. During these visits to the licensed premises by McQueen, he observed the licensee, Barnell Evans, on the premises only twice, but on each of these occasions McQueen observed the illegal use or sale of controlled substances on the premises which could also have been observed by Evans. Louise Evans has a full-time job at a local hospital and visits the licensed premises only for the purpose of taking the books and records home where she prepares the payroll, pays bills, and keeps the books for the business. Barnell Evans' principal occupation is construction. He is a stucco subcontractor and has maintained this business in Clearwater for a number of years. He has a good reputation in the building industry for honesty and integrity. Operation of Foxy's Den is a part-time occupation of Evans. Respondents had been told by a friend that controlled substances were being sold in the vicinity of the premises. One bartender and a barmaid were fired by Respondents for involvement with drugs on the premises after being warned that implication in drugs on the licensed premises would not be tolerated by the owners. One witness described Barnell Evans as naive regarding controlled substances. His appearance during these proceedings supports the conclusion that he is more naive regarding how to stop the use or sale of controlled substances than indifferent to such use or sale. The bartender on duty most of the evenings Foxy's Den was visited by McQueen, and who was involved in McQueen's purchases, is June Little, the nephew of Barnell Evans, who had hired Little because he was out of work, living with his mother, and "needed a job." Respondents have negotiated an agreement, Exhibit 4, with Curtis McCoy Security Agency for the latter to provide an unarmed uniform security guard on the licensed premises from 4:00 p.m. until midnight daily to detect and deter violations of the laws regarding sale and/or use of controlled substances on the licensed premises.
