Findings Of Fact Respondent, Alton Beverages, Inc., trading as Mayflower Lounge, holds Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License Number 23-2043, Series 4- COP. Respondent conducts its business pursuant to said license at 17IG Alton Road, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto Sam Rosen was the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Alton Beverages, Inc. In addition, at all times material to this proceeding, Robert L. Pyle was the night manager for Respondent's licensed premises at the aforementioned address. During the time periods alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, that is, from February 21, 1981 through March 7, 1981, Dottie Turner, Laura Kimberly, Mona Castro, Sandra Timmsen and Deborah Sutcliff were dancers at the licensed premises, and were "agents" of Respondent. In the early morning hours of February 21, 1981, an undercover officer in Petitioner's employ was introduced by a confidential informant to Robert L. Pyle, the night manager on duty at Respondent's licensed premises. Shortly after that introduction, the undercover officer purchased a quantity of cocaine from Pyle for $50.00, the sale and delivery of which substance took place on the licensed premises, while Pyle and the officer were seated at a table in the lounge portion of the premises. During the evening hours of February 21, 1981, Petitioner's undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. While seated at a table with Dottie Turner, a topless dancer in the employ of Respondent, Turner mentioned to the undercover officer that she was going outside "to smoke a joint." Thereupon, the undercover officer asked if he could purchase a "joint" from her, and she advised that she would "roll one" for him for one dollar. Thereafter, Turner went outside the licensed premises, subsequently returned to the table, and gave one marijuana cigarette to the undercover officer in exchange for one dollar. Later on the evening of February 21, 1981, the undercover officer made a second purchase of cocaine for $50.00 from Pyle, Respondent's night manager. Again, the purchase ant exchange of this cocaine took place on the licensed promises while the officer and Pyle were seated at a table in the bar. While still in the licensed premises on February 21, 1981, the undercover officer asked for, and obtained, a second marijuana cigarette from dancer Dottie Turner at no cost. On February 23, 1981 the undercover officer again returned to the licensed premises where he spoke with Dottie Turner. On this occasion another purchase of a marijuana cigarette for one dollar from Dottie Turner was accomplished, with the negotiation for and delivery of the cigarette occurring on the licensed premises. After delivery of the marijuana cigarette, the undercover officer inquired of Turner concerning the purchase of a larger quantity of marijuana. The undercover officer was advised by Turner that if he would give her the money for an ounce of marijuana she could purchase it for him and bring it to the licensed premises for delivery. When the undercover officer refused to part with the money prior to delivery, Turner advised him that he would have to come to her apartment to make the purchase. Subsequently, on February 25, 1981, the undercover officer went to Turner's apartment, some distance from the licensed premises, and purchased one ounce of marijuana for $30.00. On February 25, 1981, the undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. On this date, he met with Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and requested to purchase one quarter-ounce of cocaine. While the undercover officer and Pyle were seated in the Manager's office on the licensed premises, Pyle advised the undercover officer that he could arrange the purchase of that amount of cocaine for $500.00. Pyle further advised the undercover officer that he would have to go upstairs to get the cocaine and would return shortly. Thereupon both the undercover officer and Pyle left the Manager's office, and the undercover officer resumed a seat in the lounge portion of the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter, Pyle returned, and, while seated at a table with the undercover officer and Deborah Sutcliff, one of Respondent's topless dancers, exchanged with the undercover officer the one quarter-ounce of cocaine for $500.00 in currency. As previously indicated, the address of the licensed premises is 1716 Alton Road, Miami Beach. This address consists of the first floor of a two- story concrete block structure. The first floor is leased by Respondent from the building owner, Sam Berlin. The second floor of the structure was leased from the building owner by Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and several of the dancers and other employees of Respondent for use as apartments. At all times material hereto, access to the apartments on the second floor could be had either by way of an exterior stairway in the rear of the building, or through a door in the interior of the licensed premises opening on an interior stairway. This interior door was used frequently by the dancers to access their apartments, and was used by Pyle on at least one of the occasions when the undercover officer purchased cocaine as hereinabove described. The sketch appearing on or attached to Respondent's license does not show the second floor of the two-story structure as being contained within the licensed premises and, indeed, does not show the interior door giving access to the second floor, although the record in this proceeding establishes that the door was present when Petitioner's agent made the sketch of the premises to attach to Respondent's license. There is no showing in this record that the interior door and stairway were ever used by anyone other than persons making their residence on the second floor. The upstairs portion of the building was never used for storage or for any other purpose connected with the operation of the licensed premises. Finally, there is no showing in this record that Respondent bad, or attempted to exercise, any dominion or control over the second floor of the building. On March 7, 1981, pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement officers, including Petitioner's undercover officer, conducted a raid of the licensed premises. One of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of in excess of 10 grams of cocaine in her purse on the licensed premises. In addition, a quantity of marijuana was found near the bar and a yellow change purse containing a cocaine kit and spoon were found in the Manager's office. In the upstairs area where several of Respondent's employees lived, another of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of a controlled substance, Diazepam, and a bartender In Respondent's employ was found to be in possession of Diazepam as well as a small quantity of marijuana. Still another dancer was found to be in possession of a quantity of marijuana in her apartment, while Robert Pyle's bedroom in the upstairs area contained Diazepam and assorted narcotics paraphernalia including a cocaine user's kit, knives and scales. In addition, in the general living area of the upstairs, there was assorted narcotics paraphernalia including large heating elements; boxes and plastic jugs and bags containing different cocaine cutting agents such as procaine; an automatic plastic wrapping machine; a large-size scale; test tubes; and two bags containing cocaine. Respondent does not deny that the aforementioned activities occurred, but instead defends against the allegations or the Notice to Show Cause, as amended, by contending that the corporate licensee, through its sole officer and shareholder, Sam Hill Rosen, took every reasonable precaution to guard against such activity occurring on the premises. Respondent contends, Petitioner admits, and the record herein clearly establishes that Mr. Rosen was not "directly involved" nor did he have personal knowledge of the activities occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent asserts that in an attempt to prevent legal activity from occurring on the licensed premises, it posted signs in conspicuous places, such as the dancers' dressing room, and gave written instructions to employees announcing its policy of prohibiting drugs, other than prescription drugs, from being used or sold on the licensed premises. Violation of this employment policy, according to Respondent, resulted, on occasion, in immediate dismissal of employees. Additional Policies allegedly adopted by Respondent to guard against illegal activity included prohibiting dancers from leaving the licensed premises to go outside while they were working, and subjecting all employees to periodic "shakedown searches". There was also some indication in the record that Respondent reserved the right to subject its employees to polygraph tests. Finally, Respondent also asserts that, acting through its principal, Mr. Rosen, the premises was periodically checked while Mr. Pyle was on duty to assure that no violations of law were occurring. Accepting Respondent's representation that the aforementioned policies were established on the premises, the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that to the extent that these policies did exist they were more honored in the breach than in the observance. For example, of those employees of Respondent who were called to testify at the final hearing in this proceeding, none of them had been administered a polygraph examination, none had had their persons or belongings searched while working on the licensed premises, and they had observed Mr. Rosen on the premises during the evening hours at best "infrequently". Mr. Rosen's failure to adequately supervise the licensed premises is corroborated by the fact that on February 23, 1981, when Petitioner's undercover officer was on the licensed premises, Mr. Pyle, the night manager, was off duty, and Mr. Rosen, who managed the licensed premises during other portions of the day, was not present. In addition, on at least one occasion, one of Respondent's dancers observed Pyle on the licensed premises in possession of both cocaine and pep pills, the latter of which, according to Pyle, were used in case ". . . some of the girls came into work and weren't quite up to doing their performance." The record in this proceeding fails to establish that any agent, employee or patron of Respondent was ever observed using illegal drugs or narcotics inside the licensed premises. In addition, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has never previously been cited by and law enforcement agency, regulatory or governmental body for narcotics law violations of any nature. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either being irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Quinto Patio Bar, 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In August 1987, a joint task force was formed consisting of police officers from Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami, as well as investigators of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) , to investigate narcotics complaints against numerous business establishments in Dade County. Among the businesses targeted was the licensed premises at issue in this case. On August 27, 1987, DABT Investigator Oscar Huguet and City of Miami Investigator Pedro Pidermann, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises in furtherance of the aforesaid investigation. Accompanying Investigators Huguet and Pidermann was a confidential informant (CI), who would accompany them on subsequent visits. During the course of this visit, and three other visits that predated September 5, 1987, the investigators familiarized themselves with the licensed premises, and became acquainted with the employees and patrons of the bar. On September 5, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, in the company of the CI, returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, the investigators proceeded to play a game of pool and directed the CI to see if any drugs were available in the bar. The CI walked to the bar, spoke with employee Maria, and accompanied her back to the pool table. At that time, Maria offered to sell the investigators a gram of cocaine for $50. Investigator Pidermann handed Maria a $50 bill, Maria removed a clear plastic packet of cocaine from her pants' pocket and handed it to the CI, and the CI handed it to Investigator Huguet. Huguet held the packet up to the light at eye level, and then commented that it "looks like good stuff." This transaction took place in plain view, and in the presence of several patrons. On September 16, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. Huguet struck up a conversation with the barmaid Maria, and asked whether she had any cocaine for sale. Maria responded that the individual (later identified as Bandera) who brings in the "stuff" had not come in yet, but to come back the next day. Huguet told Maria he would return the next day and to reserve two grams for him. On September 17, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises to make the purchase of cocaine arranged the previous day. Upon entry, Maria told Huguet that the man (Bandera) who sold the cocaine had just left through the front door. Huguet gave the CI $100, and told him to follow the individual and make the purchase. These conversations occurred in the presence of Yolanda, another employee of the licensed premises. After the purchase from Bandera, the CI returned to the bar and handed Investigator Huguet 4 clear plastic bags of cocaine. Huguet examined the bags at eye level and in the presence of Maria, and placed them in his shirt pocket. On September 18, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and began playing pool. A short time later Bandera entered the bar and, upon being motioned over by the CI, approached the investigators. Upon greeting Bandera, Huguet asked him how much cocaine $100 would buy. Bandera replied "two grams", whereupon Huguet borrowed $50 from Pidermann to which he added $50 from his pocket, and tried to hand it to Bandera. Bandera, who had not previously met the investigators, told him no, to meet him in the restroom. Huguet met Bandera in the restroom, and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Huguet observed Maria looking at him, held up the two clear plastic bags of cocaine, and mouthed the words "thank you" to her. On September 24, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises. During the course of this visit, Bandera was observed seated at the bar conversing with Maria. Pidermann and the CI approached Bandera, and asked whether he had any cocaine for sale. Bandera responded yes, and invited Investigator Pidermann to the restroom to consummate the transaction. Pidermann met Bandera in the restroom and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Investigator Pidermann displayed the cocaine to Investigator Huguet and the CI above the bar. This display occurred in plain view and in the presence of several patrons. On September 25, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and proceeded to play pool. A short time later, Bandera entered the bar, approached the pool table, and placed two clear bags of cocaine on top of the pool table in front of Investigator Huguet. Huguet asked Bandera how much the cocaine would cost and he stated $100. Huguet gave Bandera the money, picked up the packets and held them at eye level for examination. This transaction took place in plain view, in the presence of numerous patrons, and was observed by employee Asucercion. On October 2, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premise. During the course of this visit, Huguet engaged Maria in general conversation and inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria advised Huguet that Bandera was probably at the Yambo Bar, and that if he wanted cocaine to see him there. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises and went to the Yambo Bar, located approximately one block away. There he met with Bandera and told him that he wanted to purchase cocaine but that Pidermann had the money at the Quinto Patio Bar. Bandera told Huguet he would meet him out back of the licensed premises. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of employee Asucercion. Huguet told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and placed two clear plastic bags of cocaine on the bar counter in front of Investigator Pidermann and Asucercion. Pidermann picked up the cocaine, examined it, and placed it in his pocket. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. While the investigators were being served by Maria and an unidentified barmaid, Huguet inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria replied that he was probably at the Yambo selling cocaine. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises, met Bandera at the Yambo Bar, and arranged the same drug deal they had made the previous day. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of Maria. Huguet again told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and seated himself next to Pidermann. In front of Maria and the unidentified bar maid, Huguet wrapped the two clear plastic bags of cocaine in a napkin and handed them to Pidermann. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondent's employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that the employees knew that cocaine was being sold, delivered, or possessed on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Ms. Dominga Lora (Lora), is the sole corporate officer of the licensee and owner of 100 percent of its stock. According to her, she is generally always on the licensed premises, and usually is seated at a small table by the pool table. Notwithstanding the fact that the lighting within the premises is good, Lora averred that she had no knowledge of any drug transactions on the premises and, in fact, doubted that any did occur. Lora's testimony is not credible. The proof is clear and convincing that the drug transactions previously discussed did occur on the licensed premises, and that they occurred in an open manner visible to patrons and employees alike. If reasonably diligent, Lora had to observe that drug transactions were occurring on the licensed premises but failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent them. Under the circumstances, it is concluded that Lora knew such sales occurred or negligently overlooked them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, issued to Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, for the premises located at 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Rene Valdes 1830 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edna P. Smith, d/b/a Silver Tip Beer And Wine, holds Alcoholic Beverage License Number 69-465, Series Number 2-COP, to operate Silver Tip Beer And Wine at 1509 West 13th Street, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Due to her age and bad health, Respondent hired a manager named Joseph Lee Solomon (Joe) to operate the licensed premises and herself withdrew from the operation and supervision of the licensed premises approximately one to one and one-half years ago. Since then, Respondent's only contact with the operation or supervision of the licensed premises was to receive her profits from Joe. On or about October 22, l985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, hire or otherwise procure the sale/or delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: aided a patron, in selling marijuana to a third party, on the licensed premises, in violation of Sections 777.011 and 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about October 28, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, hire or otherwise procure the sale and/or delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: aided a patron, in selling marijuana to a third party, on the licensed premises, in violation of Sections 777.011 and 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 6, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, hire or otherwise procure the sale and/or delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: aided a patron, in selling marijuana to a third party on the licensed premises, in violation of Sections 777.011 and 893.13(1)(a) within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 18, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered marijuana to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 21, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 25, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager of the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about December 5, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager of the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about December 16, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager of the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The transactions referred to in paragraphs 3. through 10. above occurred in view of all patrons in the licensed premises at the time. In addition, patrons openly smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and injected drugs hypodermically in front of Joe, the manager, during the time period from approximately October 22, 1985, through December 19, 1985. There was no need to hide these activities from Joe because he knew about them and condoned them. On December 19, 1985, Joe was arrested and was in possession of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. It was not proved that Respondent had actual knowledge of the violations described in paragraphs 3. through 10. and 12. above. Nor was it proved that she actually condoned them. But it was proved that Respondent was negligent in supervising her manager, Joe, and the operation of the licensed premises. Her negligence allowed the violations to take place easily and with impunity until her license was suspended.
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 69-465, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Edna P. Smith, d/b/a Silver Tip Beer And Wine, 1509 West 13th Street, Sanford, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edna P. Smith 1900 West 18th Street Sanford, Florida 32771 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 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Arturo G. Muniz, held alcoholic beverage license number 16-06467, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Chiche on the Beach, (the "premises") located at 2805 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. On January 11, 1991, Detective James Carney, of the Davie Police Department, operating undercover, and a confidential informant (CI) entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation to purchase marijuana. At the premises, the detective and the CI approached respondent, and the CI inquired of respondent if he "had something" or if he could "get something today," referring to marijuana. Respondent replied that "it was not here now," advised that he was expecting a delivery soon, that it would be more expensive ($60 instead of $55 for a quarter ounce), and advised the undercover officer and CI that they should place their order now. The CI then informed respondent that they wanted "2-quarters." While awaiting the arrival of the marijuana, the undercover officer and CI walked toward the beach to dispel suspicion and to communicate with backup police regarding the possible sale. Returning to the premises, the officer and CI sat on a wall outside the premises until the respondent whistled or beckoned the CI to the premises. Shortly thereafter, the CI purchased a baggie containing approximately one quarter ounce of cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, from respondent for $60.00. On March 5, 1991, the undercover officer, accompanied by Hallandale Police Officer Michael Antinick, returned to the licensed premises to arrest respondent. The respondent was standing behind the service counter, and there was no one else near the service counter and certainly no one, other than respondent, within arm's length of an ashtray that contained a smoldering "roach" (marijuana cigarette) or the white paper plate that contained a small amount of marijuana and some rolling papers. Such paper plate is commonly used, as it apparently was in this case, to separate the desirable marijuana leaf particles from the undesirable marijuana seeds by placing the marijuana on the plate and shaking it until the leaf particles and seeds are separated. The rolling papers found on the paper plate are commonly used to roll the marijuana leaf particles into a cigarette, such as the marijuana cigarette that was found smoldering in the adjacent ashtray. On March 13, 1991, petitioner, through its special agent Carol Owsiany, conducted an inspection of the licensed premises. At such time, respondent was not present, but an employee named "Sheedie" (phonetic) was on duty. Agent Owsiany requested the records and invoices for the business from "Sheedie." What "Sheedie" did produce was "not much" in the opinion of Agent Owsiany, but from the records that were available it was disclosed that on March 2, 1991, and again on March 8, 1991, a total of eight six-packs of Heineken beer had been purchased from Valros Warehouse, which was not a licensed distributor under the Florida Beverage Laws, for resale on the premises. According to "Sheedie," such beer was purchased to "tide them over" until their regular distributor made its delivery. No further proof was offered regarding any further efforts by petitioner to secure the records of the business regarding alcoholic beverage purchases or the licenses, if any, held by Valros Warehouse. In cases involving possession, use, delivery, or sale of controlled substances on the licensed premises, if the violation is committed by the licensee, it is the petitioner's established policy to revoke the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered revoking alcoholic beverage license 16-06467, series 2-COP, held by respondent, Arturo G. Muniz. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of March 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in paragraph 1. Subordinate. 3-8. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3, otherwise subordinate. 9-11. Addressed in paragraph 4, otherwise subordinate. 12 & 13. Addressed in paragraph 5. 14. Addressed in paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Adkins-White Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Norman D. Zimmerman, Esquire 737 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's beverage license should be revoked or suspended?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent is John Timmons, Jr., d/b/a Harold's Grocery. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent, at all times relevant to this proceeding, operated a grocery store where beer and wine was sold under beverage license number 23-1197, Series 2-APS. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent's licensed premises is located at 17347 Homestead Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. (Stipulated Fact). On September 21, 1962, the Respondent applied for a transfer of the subject beverage license to its current location. Included with the transfer application was a "Sketch of Licensed Premises." In pertinent part, the licensed premises was identified as follows: Based upon the Sketch of the Licensed Premises submitted by the Respondent to the Petitioner, the licensed premises consisted of only a portion of the building located in the northern part of the building. The southern portion of the building consisted of a pool hall which was not identified as a part of the licensed premises. The Respondent owned the entire building. The pool hall is identified above by the dotted lines. The dotted lines were not a part of the Sketch of the Licensed Premises. The Respondent agreed as an incidence of filing the transfer application that any alterations or additions to the licensed premises could be inspected in the same manner as the portion of the licensed premises identified- on the Sketch of the Licensed Premises. The Respondent subsequently made substantial alterations to the building. The portion of the building formerly used for the pool hall has been incorporated, at least in part, into the portion of the building used by the Respondent in his business. The building and its uses during the period of time at issue in this proceeding consisted of the following: The portion of the building to the south of the dotted line is the area where the pool "all was located. That area is now used as a storeroom, the Respondent's living quarters and as a part of the store. The area of the building identified as a part of the store and the storeroom are part of the licensed premises. The area of the building identified as the Respondent's living quarters is not a part of the licensed premises. This area is used exclusively by the Respondent as his personal residence. Although there is access through a door from the living quarters into the store, the living quarters were not readily accessible by anyone except the Respondent and his personal guests. Employees of the Respondent and patrons did not go into the Respondent's living quarters. No business was conducted in the living quarters. On or before February 10, 1983, the Metro-Dade Police Department (hereinafter referred to as "MDPD") began an undercover narcotics investigation of the Respondent. On February 10, 1983, MDPD Sergeant Ed Howett searched a confidential informant, gave the informant $10.00 and watched him enter the licensed premises. `When the informant left the licensed premises, the informant was in possession of marijuana and did not have the $10.00 given to him or her. The informant had purchased the marijuana from someone in the Respondent's building. Based upon the sworn affidavits of two MDPD officers as to the reliability of the confidential informant and the events of February 10, 1983, a search warrant for the Respondent's building was issued on February 11, 1983, by the Honorable Judge Alan Kornblum. On February 15, 1983, MDPD Detective Ricky Smith entered the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Detective Smith was not in uniform. Detective Smith approached Mary Williams, an employee of the Respondent, who was behind the counter on the licensed premises. Detective Smith purchased $2.00 worth of marijuana (2 marijuana cigarettes) from Mary Williams. (Stipulated Fact). Shortly after Detective Smith's purchase of marijuana, MDPD officers entered the licensed premises to execute the search warrant issued on February 11, 1983. (Stipulated Fact). The search warrant applied to the entire building. At the time of the search Mary Williams, Henry Timmons and the Respondent were present on the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Henry Timmons was behind the counter on the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Henry Timmons is the Respondent's brother and was an employee of the Respondent. Located at the cash register closest to the front door was Mary Williams. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent was located on a patio with Cary Lou Harris. The patio was outside the Respondent's living quarters and was accessible from the living quarters. The Respondent and his brother have similar facial hair. People have confused the Respondent and his brother. Detective Smith and MDPD Detective Preston Lucas, however, were able to distinguish the Respondent from his brother. Detective Smith grew up in the area where the Respondent's store is located and was familiar enough with the Respondent to recognize him. During the execution of the search warrant, approximately 100 marijuana cigarettes and several separate bags of marijuana were found in plain view on the counter on the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Marijuana was also found in Henry Timmons' back pocket. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent was surrounded to the area of the licensed premises where the police officers had entered. After discovering the marijuana on the counter, the Respondent was asked by the police if that was all of the marijuana. The Respondent replied "yeah, that should be all of it." (Stipulated Fact). Henry Timmons accompanied police officers to the storeroom at the back of the licensed premises. Although Henry Timmons worked in the storeroom, he lied when he indicated that he was unable to find the light switch. Therefore, the Respondent went to the storeroom and turned the light on. Additional bags of marijuana were found in the storeroom (Stipulated Fact). "Then these additional bags were found the Respondent stated that "well, now you really got it all." (Stipulated Fact). Based upon the Respondent's statements to police during the execution of the search warrant, it is clear that the Respondent knew that marijuana was located on the licensed premises. On three separate occasions (March 2, 4 and 28, 1983) MDPD officers entered the licensed premises in an attempt to purchase marijuana from an employee. (Stipulated Fact). On each of the occasions, the employee referred the officers to Larry Wilcox, an individual who was standing outside the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). On each of the occasions, the officer purchased marijuana from Larry Wilcox, who retrieved it from a brown paper bag which was stored behind an ice machine in front of the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). On March 2, 1983, Detective Smith entered the licensed premises and asked Mary Williams, who was still employed by the Respondent, if he could buy marijuana. Mary Williams pointed to Larry Wilcox, who was standing outside the licensed premises. The Respondent did not witness this event. Detective Smith left the licensed premises and approached Larry Wilcox. Wilcox, who was never employed by the Respondent, sold marijuana to Detective Smith. The marijuana was obtained from a bag retrieved by Larry Wilcox from behind the tee machine which "`as located outside of the licensed premises. No evidence was presented as to who owned the ice machine. On March 4, 1983, Detective Smith and Detective Lucas returned to the licensed premises. They drove up to the curb of the street in front of the licensed premises. The evidence does not show which employee (as stipulated to by the parties) referred Detective Smith to Wilcox on this occasion. Detective Smith approached Larry `Wilcox who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the licensed premises. Detective Smith again purchased marijuana from Larry Wilcox. The marijuana was retrieved from behind the ice machine. The Respondent and Henry Timmons were present on the sidewalk in front of the licensed premises during the March 4, 1983 purchase. The Respondent was close enough to witness the transaction. On March 28, 1983, Detective Smith returned to the licensed premises. He entered the licensed premises and approached the Respondent and Larry Wilcox, who were standing inside the licensed premises. Mary Williams was behind the counter. Detective Smith announced to no one in particular that he wished to buy some marijuana. Again, the evidence does not prove which employee referred the officer to Larry Wilcox. The evidence does prove that the Respondent pointed to Larry Wilcox in response to Detective Smith's question. Larry Wilcox and Detective Smith then left the licensed premises. Detective Smith again purchased marijuana from Larry Wilcox which was obtained from behind the ice machine. On March 29, 1983, upon sworn affidavit, another search warrant was obtained from the Honorable Judge Alan Kornblum for the Respondent's building (Stipulated Fact). The search warrant was executed on the same day. It applied to the entire building. During the execution of the search warrant, Larry Wilcox was arrested on the licensed premises. Upon searching Larry Wilcox, marijuana and quaaludes were discovered. (Stipulated Fact). Marijuana and quaaludes were also found in a trash can located outside the front door of the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). No evidence was presented as to who owned the trash can. Two cigar boxes, a metal can, a plastic container and three strainers, all of which contained marijuana residue, were discovered in the living quarters. The Respondent was not present during the March ?9, 1983 search of the licensed premises or his living quarters. On April 28, 1984, MDPD Sergeant Louis Battle and Investigator Lou Terminello entered the licensed premises to conduct a license inspection (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent was located behind the counter on the licensed premises when Sergeant Battle and Investigator Terminello entered. A burnt marijuana cigarette was found in plain view on the counter. (Stipulated Fact). During questioning, the Respondent stated that he smoked marijuana in his living quarters and that he no longer sold marijuana. Marijuana residue was found in the living quarters. During the April 28, 1984, search, a loaded, stolen firearm was found underneath the counter on the licensed premises. It was not proved whether the Respondent was aware of the fact that the firearm was stolen. Administrative charges were brought against the Respondent based upon alleged violations of the controlled substance statute within the beverage statute. Specifically, the Respondent was charged with possession of marijuana on the premises, conspiracy to sell marijuana, possession of marijuana by his employees on the premises, sale and conspiracy to sell marijuana by one of his employees on the premises and public nuisance. The Respondent usually worked on the licensed premises until 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. the Respondent normally retired to his living quarters. All of the events involved in this proceeding occurred after 4:00 p.m. Although there was testimony to the contrary, it is concluded that the Respondent did not take steps to prevent the possession or sale and/or delivery of marijuana on the licensed premises. The Respondent made statements which indicated that he was aware that marijuana was kept on the licensed premises, he admitted smoking marijuana in his living quarters, marijuana was found in his living quarters on several occasions and he did not fire his brother or Mary Williams after the execution of the first search warrant on February 1, 1983. The Respondent was negligent in supervising the operation of his business. The Respondent entered into a Stipulation on October 7, 1974, whereby he agreed to pay a civil penalty of $250.00 in settlement of charges that the Respondent sold alcoholic beverages for food coupons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana) within Section 561.29(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana) within Section 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 2. The Respondent should, however, be found not guilty of a violation within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 2 and that portion of Count 2 should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (possession of marijuana on the licensed premises but not the marijuana found in his 1iving quarters), and a violation within Section 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes (possession of marijuana on the licensed premises and in the living quarters), as alleged in Count 3. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of conspiracy as alleged in Count Count 4 should he dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana by an employee) with Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (sale and/or delivery of marijuana by an employee) within Section 561.29(1)(a) , Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 6. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana by an employee) within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 7. It is further
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes pertaining to alcoholic beverage licenses, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Petitioner contends that Respondent violated the provisions of Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c) by condoning and/or negligently overlooking trafficking in illegal, controlled substances on his licensed premises. The Respondent contends that he took all reasonable steps to prevent any unlawful activities from occurring on his licensed premises, and that to the extent any unlawful activities were conducted on his licensed premises, he neither condoned nor negligently overlooked them.
Findings Of Fact Robert Pauley is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 60-1229, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is located at 4458 Purdy Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is operated under the name "The Treehouse Saloon". The Treehouse Saloon is a "topless bar". It offers so-called adult entertainment to members of the public as well as beer and wine for consumption on the premises. The entertainment consists of women who dance nude or semi- nude. The premises includes numerous tables and a bar where patrons sit, pool tables, restrooms, an office where the Respondent conducted business, a disc jockey's booth, and a dance floor where the women performed. The Treehouse Saloon has been closed since June 8, 1983, when the Petitioner issued an emergency suspension order and notice to show cause. During May and June, 1983, John T. Slavin, an agent employed with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, was acting in an undercover capacity. He took on the appearance and wore clothes compatible with the role of a member of a motorcycle gang. He had been directed to frequent topless lounges in Palm Beach County and to work undercover to determine if illegal drug activities or prostitution were occurring. On May 5, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse Saloon. During the evening, he made friends with "Duane" who was working in the saloon as a disc jockey. Slavin asked Duane about the prospects of purchasing cocaine. Duane told Slavin that that could be arranged and that it would cost $60 for three- fourths of a gram. Slavin gave Duane $60. Duane left the disc jockey area and approached one of the dancers whose name was "Barbara." Duane then returned to Slavin and advised him that the "product" was on the way. A short time later, Barbara approached Duane, then Duane brought a matchbox to Slavin. The matchbox contained a transparent plastic bag with white powder in it. After he left the bar, Slavin 7 field-tested the "product" then turned it over to a chemist employed with the Sheriff's Department. The "product" was cocaine. The sale was made at approximately 2:00 a.m. On or about May 12, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse lounge at approximately 11:45 p.m. He saw Duane and asked whether Duane was "playing oldies." This was a signal meaning that Slavin wished to purchase more cocaine. Duane said that he was "playing oldies nightly" and asked Slavin how much he wanted. Slavin handed Duane $60. A short time later, Duane delivered a cigarette pack to Slavin and told Slavin that a cigarette was missing. Slavin found two transparent bags containing a white powder inside the cigarette pack. Slavin later field-tested the contents and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 13, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 11:30 p.m. Shortly after mid- night on May 14, he approached Duane's booth and asked if they could do business. Duane said "yes," but that it would take a little longer for the delivery due to a special event (a "banana eating contest") that was being presented. Slavin gave Duane $60 which Duane put in his pocket. Later that morning, Duane put a pack of matches in Slavin's pocket. Slavin went to the men's room and found two plastic bags with a white powder inside. He later field-tested the contents then delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 18, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 10:30 p.m. He saw Duane at the bar and asked him why he was not in the disc jockey's booth. Duane indicated that he was squabbling with the management and would be taking some time off. Duane asked Slavin if he was interested in "some white" which is a "street name" for cocaine. Slavin asked if Duane could get him a gram. Duane said that he could. Slavin gave Duane $80. Later, Duane handed Slavin an aspirin tin. There were two small bags of white powder inside the tin. Slavin later field tested the contents then delivered them to a chemist. The product was cocaine. On this occasion, Duane said that he would be away for a while. Slavin asked Duane who could supply "coke" (cocaine) in Duane's absence. Duane named three dancers: "Linda," "Doree," and "Barbara." Although Duane was not in the disc jockey's booth on that occasion, he did appear to be directing other employees, including dancers, in their activities. On or about May 19, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 1:00 a.m. He talked to a dancer called "Doree." Doree's actual name is Diana Donnell. Since then, she has been arrested. Slavin asked Doree if she could get him some "coke." She told Slavin that it would cost $40 for a half gram. Slavin asked if he could buy a full gram, and she said "yes." Doree then performed as a dancer, after which Slavin gave her $80. At that time, he was standing right next to the dance floor. A short time later, Doree returned with two small plastic bags which contained a white powder. Later, Slavin field-tested the powder and turned it over to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 25, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon shortly after noon. He sat at the bar next to a dancer whose name was "Samantha." Slavin asked her where Doree was, and was told that Doree was not working there anymore. Slavin asked Samantha if she could help him buy a half gram of cocaine. She said "yes" and that it would cost $40. Slavin placed $40 on the bar between them. She placed a cigarette pack on the bar and told him that there was a half gram inside. She took the money. The witness examined the contents of the cigarette pack, removed a plastic bag which contained a white substance, and returned the cigarettes to Samantha. Samantha told Slavin that he could buy from her in the future. Later, Slavin field-tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. Later in the day on May 25, 1983, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He saw Samantha and asked her if he could buy another half gram. She told him it would cost $40. Slavin gave her $40 and she went into the dressing room that was on the premises. When she came out, she gave him a transparent package that had white powder inside. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On May 31, 1983, at approximately 10:45 p.m. Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He talked to a dancer known as "Mama She She." Slavin asked if Samantha was available and was told that she was not there. Maid She She, whose actual name is Michelle West, said that she had "done a line of coke" earlier which was "dirty," but had given her a "good high." She told Slavin that a half gram would cost $40. Shortly after midnight, Slavin gave her $40. He did not receive anything from Mama She She until approximately 3:50 a.m. On several occasions in the interim, Slavin talked to Mama She She about it, but she indicated she was having some difficulty obtaining the cocaine. Eventually, she gave him a clear bag that had powder inside. She told Slavin that she would be working the next day (June 2) from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and that the witness could buy more then. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents of the bag and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about June 2, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 3:30 p.m. He saw Mama She She and talked to her. She asked him if he was interested in "a half or a whole." He said "A half." She returned a bit later and said that there was nothing there then, but that if he would wait, she could probably get it. Later, she told Slavin that she was a bit reluctant to sell to him because he had not given her a "line" from his purchases. Slavin told Mama She She that he was buying it for friend to whom he owed money. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Mama She She still had not delivered anything to Slavin. She asked if he could drive her home, which he agreed to do. As they were leaving, another dancer, "Barbie," came in. Barbie asked Slavin if he recognized her. She told him that he had gotten cocaine from her through Duane in the past. Slavin asked if he could get a half gram, and Barbie said "yes." Slavin then took Mama She She home and returned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Barbie gave him a plastic bag with white powder inside. Slavin later field- tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. All of the women that Slavin dealt with at the Treehouse Saloon were dancers. They were either scantily clad or nude. They would dance for three songs on the dance floor, and customers would put money in their garter belts. A bartender and a bouncer were also present at the saloon. From time to time, a bartender or the disc jockey would tell a dancer it was her turn. The Respondent had hired the dancers as "independent contractors." Whatever their status at the Treehouse Saloon, the dancers were subject to direction from the Respondent or his managers. A list of rules for dancers provided, among other things, that no hard liquor or drugs were allowed on the premises and that the first offense would result in termination. The dancers were required to sign an "independent contractor agreement." The contract provided that dancers would not be considered an agent or employee of the saloon for any purpose. Despite these provisions, the dancers were clearly subject to direction by the bartender or disc jockey at the saloon. In addition, they were required to wait on tables, to circulate among customers, to work their complete shifts, to tip the bartender, and to perform other functions. They were clearly subject to the supervision and control of the Respondent, the bartender, or the disc jockey. When Slavin made the cocaine purchases described above, he communicated with Duane or the dancers in a normal conversational tone. A normal conversational tone in the Treehouse Saloon would he somewhat loud because loud music was constantly playing. The transactions were made in a somewhat secretive manner. A person who was carefully observing or monitoring the premises, however, would necessarily have been suspicious of Slavin, Duane, and the dancers. The Respondent did post rules in various locations of the Treehouse Saloon which provided that illicit drugs were not allowed. His dancers' rules provided to the same effect. Other than that, it does not appear that the Respondent took any steps to properly monitor his premises to assure that such activities were not occurring. Given the number of transactions and the nature of the transactions undertaken by Slavin, the transactions would have been observed by a manager who was reasonably observing and monitoring the premises. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent was directly involved in any drug trafficking or that he condoned it. The evidence does, however, establish that he was negligent in not properly monitoring the licensed premises to assure that illegal activities were not being undertaken there.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause and suspending his beverage license for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 14 day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Albert R. Wilber, Jr., Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Sweet's Lounge, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, Series 2-COP, for the location of Sweet's Lounge, 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges in this case. On April 24, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva drove his automobile to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He was approached by a male who asked what he wanted, and Oliva responded that he wanted "Boy," a street name for heroin. The male answered that he did not have any. Another male approached Oliva, who again indicated that he wanted some "Boy". Oliva observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge. Beverage Investigator Alphonso Junious was inside the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge and observed the entire transaction with Oliva. He observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge and approach a female patron known as Ramona, who handed the male a tinfoil package. The male returned to Investigator Oliva and exchanged the tinfoil package for $20.00. The male then reentered Sweet's Lounge and gave the $20.00 to Ramona. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva returned to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He discussed the purchase of some "Boy" from an individual named William Rainey. Rainey went inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge and returned with a tinfoil package which he delivered to Oliva in exchange for $20.00. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Investigator Junious returned to the premises of Sweet's Lounge. The on-duty barmaid, Beatrice, left the premises for a short time and asked a female, later identified as the barmaid Linda, who was sitting at the end of the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette, to watch the bar until Beatrice returned. Beatrice said nothing to Linda about the marijuana cigarette. Linda walked behind the bar and continued smoking the marijuana cigarette while performing bartending duties. When Beatrice re-entered the premises, Ramona was standing in the doorway handing a tinfoil package to a male in the view of Beatrice. Junious entered into conversation with Ramona and, during the conversation, Ramona delivered a small tinfoil package to an unknown male patron. Investigator Reylius Thompson was also inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge on April 25, 1985. He observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, which he was able to identify through their appearance, smell, and the manner of smoking. On May 1, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. They observed the bartender Beatrice seated at the bar counter with two male patrons who were smoking a marijuana cigarette. After the bartender Linda came on duty, the officers observed her remove a marijuana cigarette from her purse and begin to smoke it behind the bar counter. Junious asked Linda for change for a $20.00 bill so he could buy cocaine. Linda asked what Junious wanted, and he told her a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse behind the counter and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. While Investigator Thompson was seated at the bar on May 1, 1985, he also asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda again removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse and delivered it to Thompson in exchange for $10.00. On May 3, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. While Beatrice was bartender, Junious observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked to purchase $10.00 piece of cocaine from her. Linda requested Beatrice to hand her her purse, from which she removed a tinfoil package of cocaine. Junious observed a plastic bag containing numerous tinfoil packages inside of Linda's purse. Linda sold the package of cocaine to Junious for $10.00 While Investigator Thompson was sitting at the bar on May 3, 1985, he asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda asked Beatrice to pass her purse to her from behind the bar. Beatrice handed the purse to Linda and Linda took out a tinfoil package of cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00 On May 8, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. While the investigators were seated at the bar counter, they observed three male patrons also seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Beatrice, the bartender. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked her for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed her purse from behind the bar, removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. Later that evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. She again removed a tinfoil packet containing cocaine from her purse and sold the cocaine to Thompson. ll. On May 10, 1985, Investigators Junious, Thompson and McKeithen went to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine, and she replied that she only had rocks. Junious agreed to purchase the rocks and received a tinfoil package of cocaine from Linda, which she had removed from her purse behind the bar. Later that same evening, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine. She removed from her purse a tinfoil package containing cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. That same evening Investigator Thompson observed a male disc jockey smoking marijuana in the presence of patrons and passing the marijuana cigarette to some of the patrons. On May 14, 1985, Investigators Thompson and McKeithen returned to Sweet's Lounge. Thompson observed four patrons seated at a table cutting a white powder and snorting it from the top of the table. He also observed Ramona and a male patron, while seated at the bar, snort a white powder through an empty cigarette paper tube in view of the bartender Beatrice. On May 15, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda if she had any cocaine, and she responded that she did but Junious would have to wait until she served a customer. After serving a customer, Linda sold Junious a small tinfoil package containing cocaine for 510.00. Junious also observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, sniffing white powder, and removing tobacco from regular cigarettes, inserting white powder into the cigarettes, and smoking same. On that same date, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for cocaine. She replied that she had rock or powder cocaine and Thompson ordered rock. Linda walked into the package store portion of the lounge and returned shortly to Thompson, handing him a tinfoil package containing a small rock of cocaine in exchange for $10.00. On that same date Thompson observed Ramona using an empty cigarette paper tube to snort a white powder. On May 22, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson entered the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. The officers observed patrons seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of bartender Beatrice. The officers also observed Ramona seated at a table with several male patrons, all of whom were snorting a white powder from the table top and smoking a white powder in cigarettes. On May 29, 1985, Investigator Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. He observed Linda smoking a marijuana cigarette behind the bar counter and observed Ramona sitting on the west side of the premises with a quantity of white powder on the table. Thompson approached Ramona, sat down next to her, and began to talk to her about cocaine. While Thompson was seated with Ramona another female patron smoked a marijuana cigarette. Later that same evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for cocaine and she responded that she had rock or powder. He ordered powder and Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. On the majority of the occasions described above when the investigators were inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge, there was a pervasive odor of marijuana smoke throughout the entire premises. The white powder which was being sniffed by patrons on the licensed premises at the various times described above was cocaine. In brief summary, the following relevant events took place at the licensed premises during the period of the investigation: 4/24/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance. 4/25/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and a patron delivered two small tinfoil packages to other patrons, and several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes. 5/01/85: Two patrons smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/03/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/08/85: Three patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in immediate presence of an employee, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/10/85: A disc jockey smoked marijuana and shared it with patrons, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/14/85: Six patrons sniffed cocaine; two did so in immediate presence of an employee. 5/15/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana and sniffed cocaine, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/22/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in the immediate presence of an employee and several patrons sniffed cocaine. 5/24/85: A patron had cocaine in open view on a table, a patron smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee on duty smoked a marijuana cigarette, and an employee made one sale of cocaine. Mr. Ebbie Sweet was never on the licensed premises on any of the occasions described above when the investigators were on the licensed premises. At all times material to this case, Mr. Andrew Johnson has been the manager of Sweet's Lounge. The owner, Mr. Ebbie Sweet, has given the manager various instructions about the operation of the premises. The instructions include: (a) keep the premises clean, (b) keep drugs out of the premises, (c) tell all employees to do the same, (d) put up signs about what can and cannot be done on the premises [including a sign reading "No Drugs Allowed"], (e) post the DABT flyer, and (f) put a "no loitering" sign outside the premises. The "no loitering" sign has not worked very well. When Mr. Andrew Johnson is on the premises he spends most of his time in the package store portion of the premises and very little of his time in the bar portion. On one occasion prior to the events described above, the Dania Police Department told Mr. Andrew Johnson there was a drug problem in Sweet's Lounge. He told them to come in anytime they wanted to and to arrest anyone they wanted to. Mr. Johnson did not change any procedures at Sweet's Lounge after the Dania Police Department told him about drug problems. Mr. Andrew Johnson knows Ramona. He has never seen her buy or use drugs, but he has heard that she is suspected of being a drug user. Ramona was a frequent visitor at Sweet's Lounge. Mr. Ebbie Sweet is the president of and the principal functionary of Sweet's Lounge, Inc. A sister and a nephew of Mr. Sweet also have some nominal connection to the corporation, but neither of them is active in running the licensed business. Mr. Ebbie Sweet enjoys an excellent reputation in his community. He is active in community affairs and has engaged in various charitable activities for the betterment of his community. It has always been his desire to run a reputable business and if he had known what was going on inside the lounge he would have fired those involved and would have closed the place up himself. In sum: Mr. Ebbie Sweet appears to be a good citizen who was trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, for both him and the community, he wasn't trying quite hard enough. Some time ago Mr. Ebbie Sweet's wife passed away. As a result of that misfortune Mr. Sweet slowed down a lot and became less active in many things, including the amount of time and energy he devoted to the licensed business. He had at one time visited the licensed premises on a regular basis, but during the past ten months he only made a couple of trips a month to the licensed premises, and those were primarily to check on the inventory. During the past ten months he has hardly ever visited the licensed premises after dark. Mr. Sweet was relying on Mr. Andrew Johnson to manage things for him at the licensed premises even though he knew that Mr. Johnson was not the most reliable of managers. As Mr. Sweet put it, Mr. Johnson "has a few faults." Some years ago Mr. Sweet had an alcoholic beverage quota license which permitted him to sell all types of alcoholic beverages at Sweet's Lounge. When he had that license he had written instructions for his employees, he had doormen, and he had security guards. Since he sold the quota license and obtained his present license (which is limited to beer and wine sales), he has not had written instructions for his employees, he has not had doormen, and he has not had security guards. Mr. Sweet does not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees. He has thought about hiring undercover people to patrol the premises, but has never done anything about it. The area of town in which Sweet's Lounge is located is one in which controlled substances are readily obtainable. Sweet's Lounge has had a recurring problem with undesirable people loitering in front of the lounge, people Mr. Sweet described as "hoodlums." All of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used by patrons inside the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. None of the employees took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the use of controlled substances by patrons. The foregoing findings of fact include the majority of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner. They do not, however, include any proposed findings based solely on the testimony of Investigator McKeithen. Some of the proposed findings based on McKeithen's testimony are irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Other proposed findings based solely on McKeithen's testimony are rejected because much of her testimony was neither persuasive nor convincing. While I have no doubts at all about her candor, honesty, or integrity, I have certain doubts about her attention to detail and her ability to recall and describe with accuracy events that took place in her presence. In making the finding that the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises were aware of the extensive use of drugs by patrons, I have not overlooked the testimony of the employees denying such knowledge. I find the denials to be unworthy of belief in light of all the other evidence in the record.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, series 2-COP issued to Sweet's Lounge, Inc., for the premises located at 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chesley V. Morton, Esquire 604 Southeast Sixth Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license number 30-230, series 1- COP, which authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on premises. The licensed facility, known as Shorty's Country Club, is located in rural Gadsden County. Based on an undercover investigation, a warrant was obtained on June 4, 1981, to search Respondent's licensed premises and curtilage (Petitioner's Ex. 1). The search warrant was executed on June 12, 1981, by Beverage Officer Frederick Miller and Sheriff's Deputies B. Shelfer and T. Haire. Officer Miller served the warrant on Respondent, and read and explained it to him. The premises search disclosed material later confirmed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory to be 8.7 grams of cannabis (Item 1, Petitioner's Ex. 2). At the time of the cannabis seizure, Respondent stated to Officer Miller that the cannabis was his, to be smoked to help his eyesight, but offered no prescription or permit for cannabis possession. The premises search also produced three foil packets, each holding five 10 mg. tablets, later confirmed by the FDLE laboratory to contain Diazepam (Valium)(Item 3, Petitioner's Ex. 2). At the time of seizure, Respondent told Officer Miller that the Valium belonged to his roommate's brother, but offered nothing to support this statement. A search of the Respondent's vehicle, located adjacent to the licensed premises, revealed a case (forty-eight 200 ml. bottles) of Seagrams Gin. Vehicle permit number 659, issued by the Petitioner to Respondent for transporting the alcoholic beverages to be sold on the licensed premises, was found on the dashboard of this vehicle. Respondent admitted possession of the gin, but claimed he did not intend to sell it on the licensed premises.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of charges contained in counts one, two and four of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, number 30-230 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1981.
