Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not on or about July 13, 1975, Arthur Hayes, Jr., licensed under the beverage laws, and or his agent, servant or employee did sell or permit to be sold, served or consumed alcoholic beverages, to wit: a quart bottle of Schlitz beer, any time otherwise not provided for by county or municipal ordinance, contrary to Florida Statutes 561.29 Whether or not on or about July 20, 1975, Arthur Hayes, Jr. licensed under the beverage laws and or his agent, servant or employee did sell or permit to be sold, served or consumed, alcoholic beverages, to wit: a quart bottle of Schlitz beer at a time otherwise not provided for by county or municipal ordinance, contrary to Florida Statutes 561.29.
Findings Of Fact In the presentation of its case, the petitioner called beverage agent Eugene Fogel to the stand. On or about July 13, 1975, agent Fogel was working for the Sanford, Florida, Police Department and in addition was acting in an undercover capacity for the Division of Beverage. At around 2:00 p.m. July 13, 1975, then police officer Fogel met with agent Herb Baker of the Division of Beverage in Sanford, Florida, for purposes of investigating alleged illegal alcoholic beverage sales which were being made on Sunday. The witness, Fogel, went to the address of Dinah's West Side Grocery, entered the store and purchased a quart bottle of Schlitz beer from the respondent, Arthur Hayes, Jr., This particular item of evidence became petitioner's exhibit 1 and is currently in the custody vault of the Division of Beverage District Office in Orlando, Florida. Testimony by agent Herb Baker indicated that the meeting as spoken of by agent Fogel had transpired, and he had seen agent Fogel enter the subject premises on July 13, 1975, and come out with a paper bag which contained petitioner's exhibit number 1. This exhibit was turned over to agent Baker. Officer Fogel testified that on Sunday, July 20, 1975, the same sequence of events occurred that had occurred on Sunday, July 13, 1975. He met agent Baker and then went to Dinah's West Side Grocery around 3:30 p.m. and purchased a quart bottle of Schlitz beer, which is petitioner's exhibit number 2. The petitioner's exhibit number 2 is now located in the custody of the District Office, Division of Beverage, Orlando, Florida. Again, agent Baker stated that he observed officer Fogel go into the premises on July 20, 1975, return with a bag and that the bag contained a quart bottle of Schlitz beer. The testimony was given by officer Fogel that July 13, 1975 and July 20, 1975, were Sundays. Other Petitioner's exhibits admitted into evidence were exhibit number 3 which is a notice to show cause with accompanying administrative complaint, exhibit 4 which is a notice of hearing, and exhibit 5 which is a copy of an ordinance in Seminole County, Florida. This ordinance was in effect on July 13, 1975 and July 20, 1975, and prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages on any Sunday. The respondent took the stand in his own behalf and indicated that he knew Eugene Fogel in July of 1975, and knew that Eugene Fogel was a policemen with the Sanford Police Department. He stated that he therefore would not have sold beer to Officer Fogel on Sunday, because he knew such a sale would be illegal. The witness also stated that the only employees in his store were he and his wife and consequently the only explanation he could think of for the two quarts of beer, was that the policemen had stolen the beer from his freezer. He said this would have been easy since there was no lock on the beer freezer and it was close to the door. After assessing the testimony of the witnesses, together with the examination of the evidence it is determined that the violations as alleged in counts 1 and 2 in the administrative complaint have been proven. This determination is arrived at because it would not appear that there is any motive on the part of the two police officers to promote absolute falsehoods. On the other hand considering the interest of the respondent and the quality of his comments, he has not effectively explained or defended against the charges.
Recommendation For committing the offense as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the respondent, Arthur Hayes Jr., have his license suspended for a period of 30 days. For committing the offense as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the respondent, Arthur Hayes, Jr., pay a civil penalty in the amount of $150.00. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Arthur Hayes, Jr. 1717 West 18th Street Sanford, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF BEVERAGE IN RE: DINAH'S WEST SIDE GROCERY 1717 West 18th Street CASE NO. 75-2011 Sanford, Florida DABT CASE NO. 5-75-94-A License No. 69-139 /
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on grounds that (1) on several occasions, cocaine was possessed, sold, or delivered on the licensed premises by Respondent's employees in violation of state law, and (2) by virtue of such Possession, sale, or delivery of cocaine by its employees, Respondent maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Provende, Inc., a general partner in a limited partnership known as Alexandre, Ltd., is responsible for and operates a nightclub under the name of Club Alexandre (the "Club") at 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In connection with its operation of Club Alexandre, Respondent holds beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, which permits the sale and consumption of intoxicating beverages on the premises. (Stipulation of Parties, Testimony of Cachaldore.) Club Alexandre, located within the Omni International complex, is a large, multi-faceted club. Its premises consists of two levels totaling approximately 30,000 square feet. The first level includes a restaurant, bar area, three separate dance floors, bathroom facilities, and a stage for entertainment. Buffet lunches are served as early as 11:30 a.m., followed by a cocktail hour in late afternoon, dinner, and live entertainment which continues until 3:00 a.m. The second level is used primarily for private parties, weddings, and business meetings; it is enclosed in glass, and includes banquet rooms, bathroom facilities, storage rooms, and the Club's business offices. Ordinarily, the Club employs from 45 to 50 persons as busboys, bartenders, barmaids, waiters, maitre d's, cooks, dishwashers, office staff, promoters, and buyers. Most of the employees have been hired by Alex Cachaldora--general manager of the Club, stockholder, and president of Respondent. He either hires or approves the hiring of all Club employees and is the individual responsible for managing the Club on a daily basis. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Club Alexandre is a semi-private club. Upon application, acceptance, and payment of a fee, persons may become members; public customers may also use the Club after screening at the entrance and payment of a cover charge. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) I. As to Count I On November 23, 1980, at approximately 12:10 a.m., D.C. Diaz--an off- duty officer of the Miami Police Department--paid a cover charge and entered the Club Alexandre. He sat at the bar counter, ordered a drink from a young barmaid dressed in a black uniform, and asked her if she could give him some "white magic", a street term referring to cocaine. She asked how much he wanted, he said "one gram"; she then informed him that the price would be $65. (Testimony of Diaz.) Diaz then gave the barmaid a $100 bill; she went to the cash register and returned with $35 in change which he gave to Diaz. She told him, "It will take between five and ten minutes." (Tr. 22-I-22.) Five to ten minutes later, a waiter--dressed in a black tuxedo-type shirt--approached from the restaurant area and gave the barmaid a folded napkin which she, in turn, gave to Diaz. He opened the napkin and found a small tinfoil packet inside containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Diaz.) Subsequent laboratory tests by the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department confirmed that the white powder obtained by Diaz from the barmaid on November 23, 1980, was cocaine. II. As to Count 2 On January 23, 1981, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Beverage Officers Carmen Gonzalez and Joe Mato, together with Art Serig of the Miami Police Department, entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. They proceeded to the second floor area, sat at a table, and ordered drinks. (Testimony of Mato.) At approximately 12:25 am. (January 24, 1981), Officer Mato proceeded to the downstairs bar where a barmaid identified as Enid Epstein was tending bar. After ordering a drink, he asked her if she knew where he could obtain some "white magic"; she answered, "Yes, if he is still here it would be $65."(Tr. 22-I-53.) He agreed to the price and handed her $70. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area located in the rear of the premises. A few minutes later, he observed her running across the upstairs lounge area to the bar. After a brief delay, she proceeded toward the downstairs bathroom area. She then returned to Officer Mate, handed him a $5 bill folded into a small package, and explained, "This is the change that I owed you." (Tr. 22-I- 54.) He opened the folded $5 bill and found a small tinfoil packet containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Mato.) Subsequent Dade Public Safety Department laboratory tests confirmed that the white powder obtained by Officer Mato from Enid Epstein was cocaine. (P-2.) III. As to Count 3 On January 24, 1981, at approximately 9:20 p.m., undercover Beverage Officers Lou Clark end Lou Terminello entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of continuing the Division's narcotic investigation. They seated themselves at the downstairs bar area end ordered drinks from a male bartender who introduced himself as "Bill", later identified as William Mendel. Officer Clark told "Bill" that they had picked up a couple of girls and asked if there was anything to help with the party. A conversation ensued about there being a lot of "snow" in Kansas--Clark using the term's ordinary meaning--and "Bill" answering, "That is not the kind of snow I was referring to." (Tr. 22-I-132.) In response to Clark's question about obtaining something that might help with their party, "Bill" indicated his contact wasn't there at that time, but that "they should be in later." (Tr. 22-I-133.) Officers Clark and Terminello then left the premises. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) About an hour later, the two beverage officers returned to the premises, and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered a drink from "Bill" and asked if his contact had arrived. He went over and talked to a young red-haired female barmaid--later identified as Enid Epstein-and returned to the officers; he then wrote "75" on a white bar napkin and placed it on the counter in front of them. Terminello said, "That is fine, we'll take two" (Tr. 22-I-136) and laid $80 on the table. Clark laid dawn a $100 bill. "Bill" took the $100, and $56 from Terminello's $80, leaving $24 in change. 4/ "Bill" then rang up a $6 sale an the register and placed the rest of the money in the right vest pocket of Enid Epstein. She then left the bar and proceeded into the kitchen area. A few minutes later she returned--via the staircase leading from the second floor--folded an unidentified object into a napkin, and handed it to Bill. He, in turn, handed the napkin to Terminello. After finding two small tinfoil packets in the napkin, the officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Terminello, Clark.) The two small packets contained a white powder. Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified the white powder contained in one of the packets as cocaine. 5/ IV. As to Count 4 After his initial drug transaction with barmaid Enid Epstein during the early morning hours of January 24, 1981, (Paragraph 7 through 9, Count 2, above) Officer Mato returned to the Club Alexandre with Beverage Officer Emil Marrero. They arrived shortly before midnight on January 24, 1981, and seated themselves on opposite ends of the downstairs bar. After ordering drinks, Officer Mato called over barmaid Enid Epstein--who was tending bar--placed $70 on the bar and told her he would like to purchase some "white magic", another street name referring to cocaine. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area, then returned and handed Mato a folded $5 bill containing a small tinfoil packet. A few minutes later, the beverage officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Mato, Merrero.) The small tinfoil packet contained white powder which subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified as cocaine. (P-2.) V As to Count 5 At 11:00 p.m., on January 27, 1981, Beverage Officers Marrero and Delmonte entered the Club Alexandre and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered drinks from barmaid Enid Epstein. Shortly after midnight Merrero folded $70 in a small packet and placed it on the bar; he then asked Epstein if he could buy some "white magic", meaning cocaine. Taking the money, she went to the kitchen area and returned, placing a folded $5 bill in front of Marrero. Inside the folded bill was a small tinfoil packet. The officers then left the premises. (Testimony of Marrero, Delmonte.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of the tinfoil packet as cocaine. (P-3.) VI. As to Count 6 On January 28, 1981, at 12:45 a.m., Officers Clark and Terminello returned to the Club Alexandre in furtherance of their narcotics investigation. Seated at the lower level bar, they ordered drinks from Enid Epstein, the barmaid. Shortly thereafter, Terminello called her over end asked her if there was any chance of their getting some more "toot", another slang ward for cocaine. She replied that she would have to check to "see if any of my people are here." (Tr. 22-I-104.) She then left the bar, walked to the rear kitchen area and returned several minutes later saying, "Yeah, no problem. There is somebody here." Id. Each officer then placed $75 on the bar; she retrieved the money, left for the kitchen area and returned with a folded napkin which contained two small tinfoil packets. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of one of the packets as cocaine. 6/ (P-5.) VII. As to Count 7 On January 29, 1981, at approximately 11:40 p.m. beverage officers, assisted by officers of the Miami Police Department, executed a search warrant on the premises of the Club Alexandre. During the search, Beverage Officer Joseph Maggio found a brown leather purse on a shelf in a locked storage room on the second floor. The outside pocket of the purse contained ten small tinfoil packets containing a white powder suspected to be cocaine. A further search of the purse revealed small baggies and six additional tinfoil packets--all containing suspected cocaine. (Testimony of Maggio, McEwan.) The purse also contained a checkbook and a Florida driver's license issued in the name of Luis A. Vargas. Vargas, the head chef for Club Alexandre, was subsequently located downstairs. After being advised of his rights, Vargas identified the purse as his own. Of the numerous packets of white powder found within the purse, only one was subjected to Public Safety Department laboratory analysis; the contents of that packet were identified as cocaine. (P-7.) VIII. Licensee's Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care end Diligence Before a beverage license can be suspended or revoked for a violation of law on the licensee's premises, the licensee must be found culpably responsible for the violation through his own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence. 7/ In the instant case, no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent has been alleged or proved. Rather, the Division contends that the violations of state narcotics laws described above resulted from Respondent's failure to exercise reasonable skill and diligence in managing and supervising its operations. Respondent does not dispute that on seven occasions, as alleged, violations of state narcotics laws occurred on the premises; however, it denys negligence or lack of diligence. It affirmatively contends that it took every reasonable precaution to guard against the illegal sale or use of narcotics on the licensed premises. (Testimony of Cachaldora, Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent's Suggested Findings of Fact.) Respondent's contention is unavailing; the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to take reasonable precautions to guard against violations of narcotics laws on its premises--that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care end diligence in managing its operations and supervising its employees. The following facts justify this conclusion: The alleged violations of narcotics laws occurred on the premises in a recurring, persistent, and practiced manner. They occurred at least seven times--over a 2 1/2- month period--and involved at least three separate employees of the Respondent. Despite the licensee's knowledge or suspicion, through its operators and managers, that violations of state narcotics laws occasionally occurred on it premises, the licensee never expressly enunciated--either to its employees or patrons--a policy forbidding the possession, sale, or use of narcotics. Employees were not admonished against involving themselves in such violations; neither were penalties for such violations announced in advance. Neither was information concerning possible narcotics law violations or convictions elicited from prospective employees. Given the nature and size of the Club, the number of its employees end patrons, and management's knowledge, or suspicion, that narcotics violations had occurred on the premises--the licensee took inadequate steps to (1) monitor activities on the premises, and (2) detect narcotics violations and prevent their occurrence. It employed off-duty Omni security guards only during times when business activity was greatest. At all other times, it relied on its employees for surveillance and security. The place where narcotics violations were most likely to occur--the bathroom facilities on two floors--were monitored by a single valet with minimal security training and who could neither speak nor understand English. The security efforts by the licensee were directed more to controlling disturbing or offensive behavior by patrons than pretending violations of law from occurring on the premises, or taking forceful action when such violations were detected. The quality of the licensee's surveillance program is illustrated by an experiment conducted by Beverage Officer Delmonte. On January 14, 1981--while at the Club with Beverage Officer Marrero--he observed several persons in the men's bathroom with running eyes and noses. During that same visit, Officer Marrero observed several waiters and a patron in the bathroom "sniffing something through their nostrils." (Tr. 22-I-78.) The Respondent's valet was also present in the bathroom at the time. On Officer Delmonte's next visit to the Club--January 27, 1981--he decided to conduct an experiment because of the suspicious activities observed on January 14, 1981. He went to the bathroom with a dollar bill rolled into a small tube; he placed it to his nostril and pretended to inhale something. The valet came in, observed this behavior, and acted surprised. Delmonte then acted embarrassed, smiled, and placed the dollar back in his pocket. After the valet handed him a kleenex, Delmonte exited the bathroom with the valet following him. At the foyer, the valet spoke with an older lady wearing a dark dress; the lady then engaged in a casual conversation with Delmonte and Enid Epstein--who was tending bar. Nothing further occurred in response to Officer Delmonte's experiment. (Testimony of Delmonte, Mendel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clerk, Terminello, Marrero, Guerre, Robertson, Cachaldora, Puig; R-3, R-7.) Respondent's suggested findings of fact are adopted to the extent they establish: (1) Between November 23, 1980, and January 28, 1981, law enforcement officers made numerous undercover visits to the Club when they did not, or were unable to purchase illicit narcotics on the premises; (2) During undercover visits during the period in question--except for the January 14, 1881, incident in the men's bathroom end the incidents alleged in Counts 1 through 7--the officers did not observe anyone using or selling illicit narcotics or marijuana. Moreover, two off-duty police officers who sometimes socially visited the Club-- and were encouraged to do so by Respondent--did not observe any narcotics violations taking place; (3) Each sale of cocaine, as alleged, was preceded by a law enforcement officer's solicitation to purchase; and (4) Unless observed in the act, it is difficult to ascertain--with certainty--whether a person uses, sells, or is inclined to use or sell narcotics. (Testimony of Stillman, Diaz, Sokolowski, Delmonte, Mandel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clark, Terminello, Marrero, Guerra, Robertson.) IX. Appropriate Disciplinary Penalty No aggravating evidence was offered by the Division to justify permanent license revocation; no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent, or its manager, has been shown. Respondent has no record of prior infractions of the Beverage Law. There is no evidence which indicates that Respondent's operator, Alex Cachaldora, was aware that several of his employees were involved with illicit narcotics. In light of the facts of this case, permanent revocation of Respondent's beverage license is unwarranted; rather, a 90-day suspension is appropriate, less any days during which Respondent's beverage license has been effectively suspended by emergency order of the Division. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Both parties have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration in this proceeding. To the extent such findings have not been adopted or incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, It is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order suspending Respondent's beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, for 90 days; provided, however, to the extent Respondent's license may have been effectively suspended by prior emergency order of the Division, the period of such emergency suspension should be subtracted from the 90-day period. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, Maximilliano N. Gonzales (respondent or Max) is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-04935, Series 2-COP, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). The license is used in conjunction with the operation of a lounge known as the Los Amigos Bar (bar or lounge) located at 5 Southwest 55th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent and his companion, Olga, purchased the lounge in January, 1983 and have operated it since that time. Generally, either Max or Olga is on the premises supervising operations although Max was seriously injured by a customer about a year ago while breaking up an altercation and was forced to curtail his activities. Consequently, he has hired several other persons to assist him in managing the lounge during 1987. In the summer of 1987, the Division received a list of fifty Miami area establishments where the City of Miami police department suspected illicit drug transactions were taking place. RespondeV bar was one of these establishments. As a part of its investigation, the Division sent two undercover investigators (Garcia and Santana) to the lounge on August 21, 1987 to ascertain whether the police department's suspicions were well- founded. The two visited the bar on a recurring basis until October 8, 1987 when the Division issued an Emergency Order of Suspension which shut down the lounge and suspended respondent's license. That prompted the case sub judice. During their seven week investigation, Santana and Garcia observed a number of open and flagrant drug transactions and other illicit acts taking place on the licensed premises. In accordance with the parties' stipulation, these acts are summarized in chronological order in the findings below. For purposes of this order, Roberto was a patron of the bar, Carlos was its manager, and Loreno, Rosa, Lourdes, Eliza and Genny were barmaids. Further, all employees were on duty when the events herein occurred. The investigation While visiting the lounge on or about September 2, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Lorena and Roberto and asked if they wished to purchase some cocaine. The investigators told Roberto that they would each be interested in purchasing a half gram of cocaine. Roberto then left the licensed premises and returned shortly thereafter and handed each investigator a half gram packet containing what appeared to be cocaine, a controlled substance. Garcia paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place "in front of the bar" and in the presence of Lorena and Rosa. The substance purchased was sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. On another visit to the lounge on or about September 4, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. Garcia told Roberto he and Santana wished to order a half gram each. Roberto left the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later. He handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. Garcia then paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place in plain view while the investigators were seated at the bar and in the presence of Rosa. The substance purchased was subsequently sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. While at the premises on September 4, Santana and Garcia heard Roberto ask Rosa in a loud voice if she wanted to purchase some cocaine. A short (but loud) conversation between Roberto and Rosa then ensued while in the presence of approximately ten patrons and three other barmaids. Throughout the same evening, several patrons were observed purchasing what appeared to be cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. On or about September 8, 1987, Santana and Garcia observed Roberto selling what appeared to be cocaine to numerous patrons inside the licensed premises. The investigators were later approached by Roberto who asked if they wished to purchase the drug. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed him two packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Lorena, Lourdes and Eliza. In addition, Carlos was on the licensed premises when these activities occurred. The substance purchased by the investigators from Roberto was thereafter sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On or about September 10, 1987, while on the licensed premises, Santana and Garcia were approached on two occasions by Lourdes and Genny who solicited drinks from the officers. The investigators then went to the parking lot of the licensed premises, and were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed Santana two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. The substance was later laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. After entering the premises on or about September 14, 1987, the investigators were immediately approached by Lourdes who solicited the officers for an alcoholic beverage. They were later solicited in the same fashion by Genny. Later on, Santana met with Roberto and Rosa and asked if he could buy some cocaine. Santana handed Roberto sixty dollars and returned to his seat at the bar. Shortly thereafter, Roberto approached the investigators at the bar and handed Santana two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Rosa and Genny. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On or about September 17, 1987, the investigators returned to the lounge and met with Eliza concerning a purchase of cocaine. Eliza approached a patron who was seated at the other end of the bar and briefly conversed with him. Eliza returned to the investigators and told them that she could obtain cocaine for sixty dollars per gram, and that the cocaine would be delivered to the bar in approximately thirty minutes. Some thirty minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and approached the investigators and asked if they desired to buy the drug. Santana told him he was interested in such a purchase and handed Roberto sixty dollars in exchange for two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. The packets were delivered on top of the bar counter in plain view and in the presence of Eliza and Lourdes. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. While at the lounge on September 17, Genny solicited two drinks from Santana. The two investigators also had extensive conversations with Eliza regarding the purchase of cocaine. On or about September 21, 1987, Santana and Garcia met with the manager, Carlos, concerning the purchase of cocaine from Roberto. During the conversation, Carlos was told several times that the investigators had purchased cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. Carlos merely responded that "Roberto is a good guy, but he is not here." At no time did Carlos express disapproval of the cocaine transactions occurring within the licensed premises. On the same visit, barmaid Genny solicited two drinks from the investigators. The investigators also had conversations with Genny regarding the availability of cocaine on the licensed premises. However, they were informed by her that Roberto had not yet arrived. On or about September 22, 1987, Santana and Garcia visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked whether they wished to purchase some cocaine. Eliza also informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper if any of his "regular customers" needed to purchase cocaine. She added that if Roberto could not come to the bar, she could sell them drugs obtained from her source who was present at the bar. After Santana and Garcia told her that they were interested in purchasing cocaine,, Eliza took a quarter from the business cash register and placed a telephone call on the lounge telephone. Eliza then returned and informed them that Roberto was on his way to the bar. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge, approached the investigators, and handed Garcia two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substance purchased was sent to the laboratory where an analysis confirmed the substance to be cocaine. It is also noted that on this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 24, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the bar and were approached by Eliza who asked if they wished to purchase cocaine. She again informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper should the investigators wish to make a purchase. After Santana and Garcia placed an order for cocaine, Eliza went to the public telephone inside the licensed premises, and made a telephone call. After she returned she advised them that Roberto would be arriving soon. Approximately twenty minutes later, Roberto arrived at the licensed premises and told them that he had the cocaine that they had ordered. Roberto then gave Santana one gram of a substance that appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. He also handed Garcia one-half gram of a substance appearing to be cocaine in exchange for thirty dollars. The two transactions took place in plain view in the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substances purchased were laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. During this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 28, 1987, the two investigators returned to the lounge and were approached by Eliza and Genny who asked if they were interested in purchasing some cocaine. Eliza told them that Roberto was not in the bar but that she could call him on his beeper. Garcia requested that Eliza telephone Roberto and order a gram of cocaine. Eliza left for a few moments and was observed making a telephone call inside the licensed premises. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Genny. The purchased substance was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On the same visit, Santana asked Roberto if he could purchase a gram of cocaine. Roberto said yes and told him the cocaine was stored in his car in the parking lot. The two then went to the car, where Roberto removed a package containing what appeared to be a half gram of cocaine, and gave it to Santana in exchange for twenty-five dollars. The substance was sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On October 1, 1987, Santana and Garcia again visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked them if they wished to purchase cocaine. She also advised them that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day. Even so, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Garcia and Santana then placed orders for one and one-half grams of cocaine, respectively. After leaving for a few moments, Eliza returned and handed Santana and Garcia a brown paper napkin containing what appeared to be a gram and a half of cocaine. She was then paid seventy-five dollars by the investigators. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On October 6, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the lounge and were asked by Eliza if they were interested in purchasing cocaine. Although she noted that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Thereafter, Garcia and Santana each ordered one-half gram of cocaine from Eliza. After leaving the premises for a few minutes, Eliza returned and gave each investigator what appeared to be one- half gram of cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. A laboratory analysis of the substance confirmed it was cocaine. When the above events occurred, there were no signs posted in the lounge warning patrons not to use drugs or to bring them on the premises. Further, the two investigators were never told by the manager or other employees to not use drugs, nor did they ever see a patron asked to leave because of having drugs in his possession. Max was seen in the lounge almost every day when the investigators were conducting their operation. However, there is no evidence that he personally saw a drug transaction take place, or that he was aware of any illicit activity. This is also the first occasion on which the licensed premises has been investigated. Mitigation At hearing Max and Olga appeared remorseful about this episode. They denied having knowledge of any drug transactions, and stated that around six months ago they had requested two Miami police officers to lend assistance in ridding their lounge of undesirable elements. They also told the police that "rocks" were being smoked in an adjacent parking lot. After the suspension of their license, the barmaids were fired. It is not clear whether Carlos was fired, but he only worked at the lounge for one or two months. A former manager who worked the first five months of 1987 testified he saw no drugs during his tenure, and that he was advised by Max to call the police if there were any problems. Because of his gunshot wounds, Max concedes it was necessary to hire other persons, perhaps too young, to oversee the lounge. He blames the incidents on those employees. If the license is reinstated, Max intends to shorten business hours and to have either himself or Olga on the premises at all times to ensure that no illicit activities occur. They also desire to sell the establishment, since they have invested their life savings in the business, and it represents their sole support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of all charges in the Notice to Show Cause and that his License No. 230495, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4483 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. 3. Covered in finding of fact 6. 4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 8. 6. Covered in finding of fact 9. 7. Covered in finding of fact 10. 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. 9. Covered in finding of fact 11. 10. Covered in finding of fact 12. 11. Covered in finding of fact 13. 12. Covered in finding of fact 14. 13. Covered in finding of fact 15. 14. Covered in finding of fact 16. 15. Covered in finding of fact 17. 16. Covered in finding of fact 18. 17. Covered in finding of fact 19. 18. Covered in finding of fact 20. 19. Covered in finding of fact 3. 20. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 21. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. 5.(a) Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3 to the extent the investigation was prompted by the City of Miami. The remainder is not supported by the evidence. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Rejected since the evidence shows Lourdes and Rosa worked "many months" and "3-4 months," respectively. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. 6. Covered in finding of fact 23. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Jose M. Herrera, Esquire Post Office Box 345118 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
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
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco seeks to suspend, revoke, and otherwise take disciplinary action against the Respondent and its license on the basis of allegations that the Respondent has violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by permitting patrons to engage in illegal activities on the licensed premises and by allowing the licensed premises to be used for the illegal keeping, selling, or delivery of controlled substances. The Respondent contends that no disciplinary action should be taken because the Respondent has qualified as a "responsible vendor," and has taken reasonable steps to attempt to prevent the conduct complained of in the Notice To Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, a corporation named 3673 Bird, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent corporation"), has been the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-01224, series 4-COP, for licensed premises knows as Uncle Charlie's, which premises are located at 3673 Bird Road, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The Respondent is owned by Robert Sloate, who is also the sole officer of the Respondent corporation. Mr. Sloate does not take an active part in the day-to-day management of the licensed premises. Mr. Sloate makes only rare or occasional visits to the licensed premises. During November of 1991 and during the first few days of December of 1991, Mr. Sloate was hardly ever on the licensed premises. Mr. Sloate did not have personal knowledge of the events described in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of these Findings of Fact. The business of the licensed premises is managed by a group of four managers. The Respondent corporation has a total of twenty-six employees, including the four managers. The Respondent corporation has performed the actions necessary to qualify as a "responsible vendor" within the meaning of Section 561.705, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 91-60, Laws of Florida. 1/ Those actions include training and instruction sessions for managers and employees, meetings of employees, and the posting of signs to discourage underage sales and illegal activity involving controlled substances. The licensed premises were also equipped with TV cameras that cover both doors, the front bar, and the back bar. However, the TV cameras do not make a tape recording of what they cover, and there is no evidence that the TV monitors are watched by employees of the Respondent corporation on any regular basis. During the course of an undercover investigation that began on or about November 13, 1991, and continued until the licensed premises were raided on December 6, 1991, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On or about November 14, 1991, a patron known as Mark sold two baggies, each containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine, to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. 2/ On or about November 14, 1991, a patron known as Gus sold cocaine to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. On or about November 14, 1991, a patron known as Mark sold cocaine to Detective Bales. (d) On or about to Detective Rivera. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine (e) On or about Agent Lopez. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Clint sold cocaine to (f) On or about to Detective Bales. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine (g) On or about Detective Bales. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Mark sold cocaine to (h) On or about Detective Rivera. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Mike sold cocaine to (i) On or about to Agent Lopez. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine (j) On or about November 15, 1991, a patron known as Mike sold cocaine to Detective Fernandez. On or about November 21, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine to Detective Bales. On or about November 21, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. On or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine to Agent Lopez. Or or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as Wesley sold cocaine to Detective Bales. On or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as David sold cocaine to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. On or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as Clint sold cocaine to Agent Lopez. On or about December 4, 1991, a patron known as Clint sold cocaine to Agent Lopez. On or about December 4, 1991, a patron known as Charles Garcia sold cocaine to Detectives Villanueva and Feria. The vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph were conducted in an open and casual manner, with no effort by either party to conceal the transaction. Most of the drug transactions described above took place when the licensed premises were quite crowded and noisy, which would have made it difficult for some of the transactions to be noticed by employees of the Respondent corporation. However, many of the transactions took place near employees of the Respondent corporation, and from the open nature of the transactions, it should have been obvious to the employees of the Respondent corporation what was going on. The flagrant nature of the illegal drug transactions taking place in the licensed premises during the period of the undercover investigation is illustrated by the following: The patron Sergio, who made several sales of cocaine to the undercover police officers and to the confidential informant, was so flagrant about his illegal activities that he carried a tambourine with him and would shake the tambourine to advise all who were interested that he had cocaine available for sale. At least one of the managers was aware of Sergio's tambourine shaking, because he testified that it annoyed him. It was obvious to anyone who troubled to look that Sergio was dealing in something, because after he shook his tambourine there would be several people who would approach him, hand him money, and receive from him small plastic baggies containing white powder. Sergio's cocaine sale activity was so casual that on at least one occasion he took a twenty dollar bill and delivered a baggie containing cocaine without even being specifically asked for cocaine. The casual nature of Sergio's activity is also indicated by the fact that he was not concerned about being asked for cocaine in the presence of two other people, and he carried numerous baggies of cocaine in his pockets. The patron Charles Garcia attempted to promote the ingestion of cocaine inside the licensed premises after he delivered cocaine to Detectives Villanueve and Feria. The undercover police officers observed numerous transactions during which a patron would approach another patron, deliver money to the other patron, and then receive a small plastic baggie from the person who took the money. These observations included the observation of numerous such transactions involving Sergio (the tambourine man) and several involving the patron known as Mike. On one occasion during the investigation, Detective Rivera observed a patron exiting the restroom with white powder beneath his nose. When Detectives Villanueva and Fiera were purchasing cocaine from Charles Garcia on December 4, 1991, a patron named Ray asked Detective Fiera to join him in the restroom. In the restroom, Ray ingested a white powder that appeared to be cocaine in front of both Detective Fiera and the restroom attendant. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of these Findings of Fact took place within the licensed premises during business hours, when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and the Metro-Dade Police Department executed a raid on December 6, 1991, at the licensed premises. After the raid was completed, thirty-four packets of unclaimed cocaine were found on the floor, as were several pills and several packets of marijuana. An unclaimed pen knife with cocaine on the tip was also found. On the night of the raid, one of the bartenders tossed a baggie of cocaine over the bar. That bartender was arrested for possession of cocaine. On the night of the raid, Sergio was found to be in possession of three baggies of cocaine, as well as other controlled substances. The investigative expenses incurred in the course of the undercover investigation of the Respondent corporation's premises totaled one thousand one hundred forty-eight dollars ($1,148.00). In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of these Findings of Fact, took place in plain view. The open exchanges of drugs and money, the casualness with which those selling drugs on the licensed premises went about their business, and the frequency of the drug transactions, all demonstrate a pattern of flagrant, persistent, repeated, and recurring violations. The nature and frequency of the subject drug transactions were such that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages issue a final order in this case revoking the Respondent corporation's alcoholic beverage license number 23-01224, series 4-COP, for the premises located at 3763 Bird Road, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $18,000.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of December 1991. MICHAEL M. 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 24th day of December 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Rajenor Bajrangi held a valid Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter Division), license for the premises known as the Quick Stop Center (hereinafter licensed premises), license number 6k9-305, series 2-APS, located at 1201 Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Underage operative Robert Scott assists the Sanford Police Department in determining whether or not licensed premises will sell alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 years of age. Mr. Scott was born on April 17, 1969, and on Monday, May 23, 1988, he was nineteen years old. On May 23, 1988, Robert Scott entered the licensed premise, walked to the back of the store, removed a 12 oz. can of Miller beer from the cooler, and proceeded to the check-out counter. He presented the beer to a man that he identified at the hearing as being Rajenor Bajrangi. Mr. Bajrangi, without requesting any identification, rang up the beer on the cash register and received from Mr. Scott the requested price for the beer. Mr. Scott departed the premise with the beer and met Officer Collison outside where Mr. Scott gave Officer Collison the Miller beer. At no time during this transaction did Mr. Bajrangi inquire as to Mr. Scott's age. Officer Chris A. Collison of the Sanford, Florida, Police Department has been a police officer for over eight years. On May 23, 1988, about 10:00 p.m., he went in an unmarked car with another officer and Robert Scott to the licensed premises. He was able to observe Mr. Scott enter the licensed premises purchase the aforementioned beer and then depart the premises. The funds that Mr. Scott used to purchase the beer were provided by Mr. Collison. Mr. Collison received the Miller beer purchased by Mr. Scott from the hands of Mr. Scott. He identified the beer that was offered as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 as being the beer that was given to him by Robert Scott. David E. Ramey is a law enforcement investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and he has been so employed for over eleven years. He inspected the can of Miller beer that was entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and knows that the evidence was labeled as beer, that it was contained in an unopened can, that it had lithographed on the lid of the can the word "Florida," and that it bore the manufacturer's trademark. Investigator Ramey had the opinion that the substance in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is beer. The usual penalty for a licensee selling to an underage person is a $1,000.00 civil penalty accompanied by a 20-day license suspension. Mr. Rajenor Bajrangi testified that, on May 23, 1988, when Mr. Scott purchased the beer, there was a large group of rowdy people loitering in the vicinity of the licensed premise and that the police officers should have arrested these rowdy persons instead of trying to make an underage case against him. Neither the testimony of Officer Collison or that of Mr. Scott served to bolster Mr. Bajrangi's claim that he was diverted by the so-called rowdy persons and Officer Collison specifically stated that there were no distractions occurring in the vicinity of the licensed premise at the time the beverage was purchased. Considering the evidence as a whole, there was no credible evidence that Respondent was distracted at the time the beverage was purchased.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the licensee guilty of a violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000.00 and a three (3) day license suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraph 1-6. Accepted Respondent's letter dated July 4, 1989. Did not dispute Petitioner's finding of fact but was in the nature of mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rajenor Bajrangi c/o Quick Stop Center 1201 Airport Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32771 Leonard Ivey Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. McNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact 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.
