The Issue Whether Respondent should accept Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact On June 8, 1992, Petitioner, Robert Boyleston filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman. Question 7 of the application inquired as to whether Petitioner had been convicted or found guilty of any crime, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo cotendere to any crime. The Petitioner responded in the affirmative to Question 7 of the application and reported that he had been arrested on two felony counts of sexual battery involving Petitioner's twelve and fourteen year old stepdaughters to which he, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled nolo contendere to two counts of solicitation for sexual activity, a felony. On February, 21, 1989, Petitioner was sentenced to two years of community control followed by eight years probation, court costs, costs of supervision, Alcoholics Anonymous treatment, and payment of therapy bills for the mother and his two stepdaughters. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner also reported that on November 15, 1989, he was convicted of three technical violations of his community control because he failed to stay at his approved residence on three separate occasions. The Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the violation of probation charges. At Petitioner's sentencing on his violation of probation the Petitioner offered mitigating circumstances which had caused his absences from his approved residence. Additionally, Petitioner's probation officer recommended that the Petitioner remain on community control and not be incarcerated for the violation of probation. However, the Court found Petitioner guilty of violating his community control. Petitioner's community control was terminated, adjudication of guilt was imposed on the two counts of solicitation and he was sentenced to eighteen months in the state corrections system followed by eight years probation with costs and treatment as originally imposed. Question 15(a) of the application inquired as to whether "any license, registration or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation or vocation of the applicant had been revoked, annulled or suspended in this or any other state, province, district, territory, possession or nation upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law, or was any proceeding now pending." The Petitioner answered in the affirmative to Question 15(a) of the application and reported that on March 5, 1991, his real estate license had been revoked by FREC for the convictions referenced above, the violation of his community control, imprisonment and failing to timely report his convictions and violation to FREC. Petitioner did not notify the Real Estate Commission of his plea of no contest because he was unaware of the requirement of notification where adjudication has been withheld. After Petitioner's conviction and imprisonment in November, 1989, the Petitioner did not think about notifying FREC because he understandably had other things on his mind and did not realize that the late- imposed conviction and imprisonment might trigger the notification requirement of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Consequently, no notification was given to the Florida Real Estate Commission until some five months later, in April, 1990, when Petitioner's father, Robert E. Boyleston, notified the Florida Real Estate Commission of his sons conviction and imprisonment. The oversight was not deliberate and was remedied. Given these facts and the other facts of this case, the former charge of failure to notify for which Petitioner has already been punished should not disqualify should not disqualify Petitioner from becoming a real estate salesman. The Petitioner is 38 years old and has a high school graduate equivalency diploma. He is a graduate of the Missouri Auction School. Since 1978, Petitioner has worked with his family's auction business, Louis Boyleston Realty and Auction, Inc. The Petitioner is currently a licensed and bonded auctioneer in good standing, and has never had any disciplinary actions taken against him by the Board of Auctioneers. Petitioner obtained a real estate license in 1979. Prior to the revocation of his real estate license in 1991, Petitioner auctioned both real and personal property, solicitated business for the family business, and booked auctions involving real and personal property. However, since the Petitioner's real estate license was revoked in 1991, Petitioner cannot deal in the sale or auction of real property and has only engaged in the auctioning of personnel property. In 1988, Petitioner admits that he was partying much too heavily and led a lifestyle that generally involved the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Put simply, Petitioner was out-of-control. Unfortunately, Petitioner had to experience a life shattering event to get his attention focused on the inappropriateness of his lifestyle, attitude and behavior. In short, Petitioner had his eyes forcefully opened when he ran into trouble with the law and committed the crimes described in his application and at the hearing. Now however, Petitioner realizes that his behavior in 1988 and early 1989 prior to his plea, was out-of-control and that he was clearly on the wrong path. Petitioner freely admits that his behavior towards his stepdaughters was wrong and deeply regrets the hurt he inflicted on them and their mother. Since his nolo contendere plea, the Petitioner participated in extensive counseling with social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists at the Lakeview Center in Pensacola, Florida. He attended approximately six months of counseling sessions prior to his imprisonment, and approximately eighteen to nineteen months of counselling after his imprisonment. This counseling was on a weekly basis during the entire period. Through counseling, Petitioner has come to recognize his crimes and his faults, to understand that his previous lifestyle is not how he wants to live his life, to go back and reconstruct his life and, through what he has learned in counseling, to begin practicing a better way of life. The Petitioner is a recovering alcoholic and has been actively involved in Alcoholics Anonymous for over five years. Petitioner's sobriety date is around July 14, 1989. The sobriety date is important in Alcoholics Anonymous because it marks the time when an alcoholic stops drinking takes personal responsibility for his or herself and begins slowly and gradually to change his or her life. Through Alcoholics Anonymous, the Petitioner has been able to see his faults, and to start living the solution. For him, Alcoholics Anonymous was a spiritual awakening and has become a way of life. Since his involvement in AA, he has served as cochairman and chairman for the Institutions Committee, which supervises 52 treatment and correctional facilities for Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties. In his role as cochairman and chairman over those facilities, he is responsible for organizing and insuring AA coverage at weekly treatment meetings. Petitioner's ongoing participation in AA is currently voluntary since he has met the mandatory court of his criminal sentence. The Petitioner currently works with approximately ten AA members on a personal basis, helping them to try and reconstruct their lives in what is called "sponsorship" in the AA program, in the same way that he was able to receive similar benefits previously. In short, Petitioner is a true believer in the AA philosophy and has dedicated a good part of his life to helping others with addiction/spiritual problems. The Petitioner admits that his rehabilitation and recovery from addiction are an ongoing process. The admission is part of the AA philosophy as well as the philosophy of any addiction treatment program. However, Petitioner has also learned that he can continue to be a better person each and every day, living his life on a spiritual basis. Other than the investigation that resulted in the revocation of his real estate license in 1991, Petitioner has not had any other disciplinary actions involving the Real Estate Commission. Other than the convictions that resulted in the revocation of his license, Petitioner has had no other criminal convictions, arrests or prosecutions. Based on the evidence at the hearing and Petitioner's very real and sincere turnaround in his life there is no doubt that the Petitioner is now an honest and trustworthy person of high moral character. Relapse appears unlikely. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to once again try for a real estate license and Petitioner's application should be accepted by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for real estate licensure should be accepted. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October 1993. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 October, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NUMBER 92-5800 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 22 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 15(d), 16 and 17 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15(a)-(c), 16(b), 16(d)-(h) of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 12 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate except those relating to the alleged inconsistency in the testimony which were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph 15(d) of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except those relating to the character of the testimony which were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph 16(c) of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate except those relating to the alleged inconsistency in the testimony which were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Emmanuel, Esquire EMMANUEL, SHEPPARD AND CONGDON 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Steve Fieldman, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Suite 107 South 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits introduced into evidence and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On January 3, 1984, an application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license number 16-262, in the name of I. T. Chips, Inc., to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples, was delivered to the Lauderhill District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by Michael Rapp. The application and personal questionnaire of Michael Rapp, Vice President of JNJ, Inc., revealed that he had been convicted of a felony within the last 15 years. Upon being informed by Sgt. Pat Roberts that the application for transfer would be denied because Rapp's conviction was disqualifying, Rapp withdrew the application. On January 6, 1984, Michael Rapp submitted an amended application for transfer of this same alcoholic beverage license to JNJ, Inc., d/b/a Apples. The amended application listed Janet Swift, a/k/a Janet Swift Rapp, as sole corporate officer and shareholder. An agreement for purchase and sale submitted with the application revealed that JNJ, Inc., was purchasing from MAM Restaurant Corporation all assets located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, the address of the licensee, I. T. Chips, Inc., for a total price of $418,600.00. The purchase and sale agreement acknowledged that a down payment in the amount of $18,600.00 had been made by JNJ, Inc., and provided for the remaining debt of $400,000.00 to be paid in monthly installments of $4,800.00 and be secured by a mortgage. The application stated that Frederick Cusolito and Janet Swift would be the sole financial investors in the business and that the corporation's banking business would be conducted at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company. Janet Swift swore that the information provided on the application was true. Whatever, Inc., is a corporation with the same business address as JNJ, Inc. Michael Rapp is the President and Secretary of Whatever, Inc. Whatever, Inc., had a bank account at the Bank of Hallandale & Trust Company and Michael Rapp was an authorized signer on the account. During January of 1984, Whatever, Inc., was writing checks to pay some of the operating expenses of the business located at 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard. JNJ, Inc., with an address of 1201 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, had a bank account at Flagship Bank of Miami. The bank records show Janet Swift as president of the corporation and Michael Rapp as Vice President. During December of 1983, the following deposits were made to the JNJ, Inc., account at the Flagship Bank of Miami: $92,500.00 from Martin I. Roth at L & M Consultants, $27,000.00 from David J. S. Gottfried, $39,000.00 from the Hanseatic Development Corporation (described as a "loan"), and $87,000.00 from an unidentified account at the Bank of Ireland in New York. None of the people or entities from whom these deposits were received were listed as financial investors of JNJ, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for the transfer to JNJ, Inc. None of them were listed as financial investors of I. T. Chips, Inc., on the sworn application filed by Janet Swift for change of business name and change of officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. Martin I. Roth, the authorized signer on the bank account of L & M Consultants who actually signed the L & M Consultants checks which were deposited in the JNJ, Inc., account, was convicted of a felony in 1981. On January 19, 1984, JNJ, Inc., borrowed $75,000.00 from Schmidt Industries, Inc., a Missouri corporation. To secure that loan, JNJ, Inc., entered into a Security Agreement (chattel mortgage) pursuant to which JNJ, Inc., pledged liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262, as security for the repayment of the $75,000.00 loan. Liquor license series number 4 COP, permit number 16-262 is the liquor license issued to I. T. Chips, Inc. 1/ The facts described in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6, above, came to the attention of DABT Investigator Michael D'Ambrosia during the course of his investigation of the January 6, 1984, application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. D'Ambrosia met with representatives of JNJ, Inc., discussed with them the information he had acquired during the course of his investigations, and requested that he be provided with certain additional information. Thereafter, District Supervisor Richard Boyd recommended disapproval of the January 6, 1984, application on April 3, 1984. On April 4, 1984, before any final agency action was taken on the application, JNJ, Inc., withdrew the application to transfer the I. T. Chips, Inc., license to JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift signed an application for a change of business name and a change of corporate officers of the licensee corporation, I. Chips, Inc. 2/ This application was filed on April 11, 1984, with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Janet Swift was again listed as sole corporate officer and shareholder. The sworn application filed in April of 1984 contained the following financial information: JNJ, Inc., which held a temporary license, which has since been withdrawn, executed an Agreement for Purchase and Sale with MAM Restaurant Corporation on 12/8/83. JNJ, Inc., the stock of which is owned exclusively by Janet Swift, has abandoned the premises, since Janet Swift has purchased all of the stock in I. T. Chips, Inc., for which she paid no consideration other than assuming the existing debts. I. T. Chips, Inc. has agreed to assume the mortgage referred to in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale; to wit, the initial principal sum of $400,000.00, payable at the rate of $4,800.00 per month, which will be paid from the proceeds of the operation of the business herein. Janet Swift is the sole and exclusive owner of T. Chips, Inc., and no other person, firm or entity has any interest, direct or indirect, in the said business. The application which was signed on April 4, 1984, and filed on April 11, 1984, did not contain any information about the financing of the business other than what is quoted immediately above, and did not list any person as having an interest in the business other than Janet Swift. On April 4, 1984, Janet Swift swore to the truth of the following statement which is printed on the application form: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statutes 837.06 and 559.791, that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as herein indicated, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license or cigarette permit for which these statements are made. On April 4, 1984, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had an interest in the alcoholic beverage license which was the subject of the application signed by Janet Swift, because that same license was pledged as collateral for a $75,000.00 loan, and pursuant to a chattel mortgage, Schmidt Industries, Inc., had a security interest in that license to guarantee the payment of the loan. 3/ On April 4, 1984, JNJ, Inc., was a financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $18,500.00 down payment that JNJ, Inc., made to MAM Restaurant Corporation and I. T. Chips, Inc., received the benefit of the $75,000.00 that JNJ, Inc., borrowed from Schmidt Industries, Inc. On April 4, 1984, the persons and entities described in paragraph 4, above, who wrote checks deposited in the JNJ, Inc., bank account were indirect financial investors in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. On April 4, 1984, Frederick Consolito was an indirect financial investor in the I. T. Chips, Inc., license or business because I. T. Chips, Inc., was either the successor to or the alter ego of JNJ, Inc. 4/ The foregoing findings of fact incorporate the substance of the vast majority of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. In those few instances where I have made findings contrary to the proposed findings, it is because the persuasive competent substantial evidence was to use contrary of the proposed findings. In those few instances where I have omitted the substance of findings proposed by a party, it is because the proposed finding was irrelevant, immaterial, cumulative, or not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order denying the application for change of business name and change of corporate officers of I. T. Chips, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1985, in 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 1st day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether the undisputed actions of Respondent constitute just cause to terminate his employment as an educational support employee, and, if not, what penalty is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Most of the material facts in this proceeding are undisputed. The parties dispute the reasonableness of the proposed termination of Respondent's employment. From December 3, 2001, through April 3, 2007, when Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay, Petitioner employed Respondent as an educational support employee, defined in Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006).1 Petitioner employed Respondent as an Electrician in Petitioner's Maintenance Services Department. The terms of employment are governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (the CBA).2 Respondent is a recovering alcoholic, but his alcoholism has not previously affected his job performance. That changed on January 12, 2007. After receiving work assignments on the morning of January 12, 2007, Respondent became loud and agitated. Respondent's supervisor asked Respondent what was wrong, and Respondent indicated he was having problems at home. The supervisor asked if Respondent had been drinking alcohol. Respondent denied the implicit accusation. After the encounter with the supervisor, Respondent drove one of Petitioner's vans to his home and consumed vodka for most of the day. At about 3:00 p.m. that day, Respondent returned the van to the parking lot of the Maintenance Department and had difficulty parking, according to the observations of Respondent's supervisor. Respondent stopped the van and got out. He was unable to walk without staggering. His eyes were red and watery. He had difficulty standing, and his shirt was soiled with vomit. The supervisor asked Respondent again if Respondent was intoxicated, and Respondent voluntarily reported his alcohol- related problem. Respondent's supervisor and two zone service managers called for assistance from the Fort Myers Police Department (the police). The police first attempted to have Respondent admitted to the Detoxification Unit, but the Unit was full. The police drove Respondent to the hospital, and the hospital admitted Respondent. The incident on January 12, 2007, was not the first time Respondent had voluntarily reported his alcohol-related problem to a member of management. In November of the previous year, Respondent experienced some personal problems and resumed the compulsive consumption of alcohol. Respondent voluntarily reported the alcohol-related problem to his supervisor and to his department director and obtained a 30-day leave of absence to complete a 28-day residential alcohol treatment program. Respondent completed only 17 days of the 28-day program. Respondent exhausted his insurance benefits after 17 days and could not afford the daily rate of $833 to complete the remaining 11 days. Respondent returned to duty sometime between January 8 and 10, 2007. Respondent informed his supervisor that Respondent had not completed the residential treatment program because he had exhausted his insurance benefits. Petitioner did not refer Respondent to another treatment program. After the incident on January 12, 2007, Respondent voluntarily entered an outpatient treatment program with Southwest Florida Addiction Services. Respondent successfully completed the program on March 30, 2007. Petitioner paid for the outpatient program and Respondent kept Petitioner notified of his progress. Respondent has maintained after-care treatment with a physician who specializes in addiction disorders and has regularly attended Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. During the period of employment that began on December 3, 2001, Respondent received one probationary performance assessment and four annual performance assessments. Petitioner consistently evaluated Respondent at an "effective level of performance" in all areas targeted for assessment, with the exception that the assessment for the 2002-2003 school year scored two areas as "focus for development/feed back." The comment section in three annual assessments provides that Respondent "continues to do an excellent job." The department director recommended renewal of Respondent's contract for the five school years ending in 2007.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from his employment without pay for four months from April 3, 2007, as a penalty for personal business on school time and driving a school vehicle for personal use, and requiring Respondent, as a condition of his continued employment, to maintain his current regimen of addiction treatment with a physician and regular intervention from Alcoholics Anonymous. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the accusation by the Petitioner directed to the Respondent that the Respondent, on or about January 24, 1980, did unlawfully have in her possession or permit or allow someone else to have in their possession, namely, Anthony Lewis Graham, alcoholic beverages, to wit: one partial quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka, one partial quart bottle of Gordon's Gin and one 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin, on the licensed premises and it is further alleged that the substances were not authorized by law to be sold under the Respondent's license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its purpose the regulation of those several licensees who sell alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Estelle Collins, is the holder of an alcoholic beverages license issued by the Petitioner, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS. This license allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine to be consumed off the licensed premises. The license is issued for the Respondent's premises located at 1152 East 21st Street, Jacksonville, Florida, where the Respondent trades under the name 21st Street Grocery. On January 24, 1980, Anthony Lewis Graham, one of the Respondent's patrons in her licensed premises, removed a box from his automobile which was parked on the street in the vicinity of the licensed premises. He carried the box which contained a partially filled quart bottle of Gordon`s Gin; a partially filled quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka and a partially filled 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin into the licensed premises. These bottles contained liquor, that is, alcoholic or spiritous beverages that were not authorized to be sold at the licensed premises under the terms and conditions of the license issued to the Respondent. The box containing the liquor was carried in while an employee of the Respondent was working in the licensed premises and placed behind the meat counter. The box was left with the top opened. It is not clear whether the employee saw the bottles in the box prior to a routine premises inspection conducted by officers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The inspection took place shortly after Graham had brought the alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises. When the officers entered the premises, they identified themselves to the employee working in the store and this employee left to get the licensee. The employee returned with the Respondent, Estelle Collins, and the officers commenced inspection of the premises. In the course of that inspection, they discovered the aforementioned bottles of alcoholic beverages in the box. They also noted other empty liquor bottles in the area of the meat counter and the service counter within the licensed premises. (There had been another occasion in February, 1979, when the Petitioner's officers had discovered empty gin and vodka bottles in the licensed premises, and this former situation brought about a citation to the Respondent but no penalty action was taken against the Respondent.) No testimony was developed on the matter of the instructions which the Respondent had given to her employees on the subject of keeping unauthorized forms of liquor out of the licensed premises. The only remark which was established by the hearing dealing with the question of keeping those items away from the licensed premises was a statement by Graham, who said that it was not unusual for him to go behind the service counter in the licensed premises. Following this inspection and the discovery of the alcoholic beverages, to wit: liquor bottles in the box, the Petitioner brought the present action against the Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint accusation placed against the Respondent, Estelle Collins, d/b/a 21st Street Grocery, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Kennedy Hutcheson, Esquire 341 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Brother J. Inc., d/b/a A.J.’s Sports (Respondent) violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state, including the administration of the laws and rules relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued license number 47-02607, Series 4-COP by Petitioner. That license allows Respondent to make sales for consumption on premises of liquor, wine, and beer at his establishment located in Tallahassee, Florida. Events at issue in this proceeding revolve around a fraternity/sorority party held at Respondent’s establishment on the evening of March 30/April 1, 2005. Members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and the Delta Nu Zeta sorority decided that they would host a “construction” theme party. To facilitate the party, the social chairman of Phi Kappa Psi contacted Respondent to make arrangements. Respondent’s establishment has several large areas on its ground floor and a single, 1,800 square foot room on the second floor. Respondent agreed to reserve its upstairs room for the Phi Kappa Psi/Delta Nu Zeta party, to waive its cover charge for party patrons, and to make “dollar wells, dollar beers” (i.e. discounted prices on certain alcoholic beverages) available to party participants for a fee of $300.00. On the night in question, most of the participants met at the Phi Kappa Psi house before going out for the evening. They gathered around 10:00 p.m. and socialized. Some people were getting their “construction” costumes together; others were “pre- partying” –-drinking before going out to minimize the size of the bar bill when they go out later. The majority of the people at the frat house at that time were drinking. At some point around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., the party moved from the Phi Kappa Psi house to Respondent’s establishment, with party members leaving in groups of three or four to drive from the fraternity house to Respondent’s establishment. It was estimated that 15 or so sorority members and 15 to 30 fraternity brothers attended the party, and that somewhere between a third and a-half of those people were not of legal drinking age. When they arrived at Respondent’s establishment, the sorority and fraternity party makers used a side entrance set up for them by Respondent for use in getting to the party. A doorman was posted at the side entrance that checked the age of each of the patrons. He would place a “Tybex®” wristband on those persons who were over the age of 21 and would mark the hand of those under 21 with an indelible marker. Once inside, party members would go upstairs, where there was a bar with a bartender, a disk jockey, and a dance floor. The party continued on until around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of April 1, 2005, at which time the bar closed and the patrons left. During the course of the evening, 244 alcoholic beverages were served at the upstairs bar at Respondent’s facility. No evidence was presented that established with any degree of accuracy how many fraternity and sorority members actually were at the party and how many were of legal drinking age. The evidence of party attendance provided at hearing varied widely and was in each instance an estimate or a guess. Numerous persons who were not members of Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Nu Zeta were in attendance. There is no accurate estimate of how many legal drinkers were at the party or how many drinks each legal patron may have had. The Underage Drinkers Shane Donnor was observed drinking at the frat house that night. He did not, however, appear to be intoxicated when he left the frat house. He had a wristband indicating that he was over 21, which allowed him to drink at Respondent’s establishment, even though he was not of legal age. It is unknown how he obtained his wristband. Donnor was observed to have a glass in his hand while at Respondent’s establishment, but no one could confirm that he was drinking alcohol. While at Respondent’s establishment, various witnesses described him as appearing under the effects of alcohol and thought he appeared quite intoxicated. By 2:30 a.m. on April 1, Donnor had a blood alcohol level of 0.27. This corresponds to at least 10 drinks and probably more. It is an extremely high level of intoxication, which could result in a coma or even alcohol toxicity in some persons. He was quite drunk and had been so for some time. Stephanie Reed was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment, as was her boyfriend and all the others in her party. She had one or two drinks, but she didn’t buy them herself. One of the fraternity brothers purchased her drinks for her. Reed testified at one point that she did not receive a wristband when she entered the establishment (signifying legal drinking age); later, she testified that she did due to the intervention of some unknown man who told the doorman to give her a bracelet. Reed’s testimony on this point is inconsistent and cannot be credited. Christopher Lowe was carded as he entered Respondent’s establishment. He received marks on the back of his hand indicating that he was underage. Although he was marked as being underage, Lowe was able to purchase two drinks from the bartender. He ordered the drinks; did nothing to conceal the underage marks on his hand; was served; and left money on the bar. Tania Vasquez was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment and was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks while at the party, but was given an alcoholic beverage by a friend that she consumed while on the premises. Elizabeth McKean, and everyone who entered with her, were carded when they arrived at the party. McKean was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks for herself, but was given a shot of tequila by someone else. She drank the shot quickly to avoid detection by Respondent’s staff. David Moser had a roommate who manufactured fake i.d. cards. When he entered Respondent’s establishment, he was carded and presented a false drivers license that made it appear that he was over the age of 21. He was marked as though he was over the legal drinking age and was able to buy and consume drinks at the bar, which he did. Lee Habern had several sips of a friend’s drink that was “snuck” to him. Prevention Of Underage Drinking It is well recognized that underage persons will seek to obtain alcoholic beverages at bars. This action by underage youths results in a “cat and mouse” game whereby the bar will change its tactics in trying to prevent underage drinking and the underage drinkers will change their methods of trying to obtain drinks. Respondent tries to combat underage drinking by creating a culture of compliance. This starts with the initial hiring of employees by Respondent. Respondent’s policy is that no underage drinking will be tolerated. This policy is stated in the Employee’s Handbook. Every employee is given a copy of the handbook upon becoming employed and is required to sign an acknowledgement that he or she received it. The policy is reiterated in informal training at every staff meeting. Every new employee at Respondent’s establishment is required to go through formal training with regard to liquor laws, the effect of alcohol on the human body, dealing with customers who have had too much to drink, and related topics. These courses are known as “PAR”, “TIPS”, and “Safe Staff” and are offered by the Florida Restaurant Association and Anheiser-Busch. Respondent has also offered training provided by agents of Petitioner. These formal training programs are offered continuously to employees, and at least one of the programs is offered three times each year. The initial formal training is accomplished within 30 days of the employee being hired. Records are maintained by Respondent as to who receives what training, and when it is provided. Respondent has a policy that everyone who is served alcohol is to have his or her age checked. When the bar is not busy, this is accomplished by having the waitress check the patron’s I.D. When the bar is busier, a doorman is posted at the entrance to check the patron’s I.D. If the patron is over age 21, he or she is given a wristband; if under age 21, an indelible mark is placed on the back of the hand. Since Respondent has experienced persons copying their “over 21” designation, it is changed on a nightly basis. Fake identification cards, if detected, are confiscated. On busier nights, Respondent might confiscate 20 to 30 of such fake identifications. On the night in question, the doorman confiscated five altered cards. Respondent also has a floor manager on duty at all times that the bar is open. The floor manager will circulate throughout the establishment to make sure that all of the policies and procedures, including the prevention of underage drinking, are being carried out. On the night in question, the floor manager, Bo Crusoe, is documented to have worked and in the nominal course of events would have checked the upstairs area of the premises several times. On busy nights, Respondent will hire one or more off- duty City of Tallahassee police officers to serve as security at the bar. The officers work in their police uniforms. These officers serve first and foremost as high visibility deterrents to unlawful activity. Their mere presence serves to minimize underage drinking. Respondent regularly has off-duty law enforcement on the premises. Respondent also has a security consultant, Officer John Beemon, who is a Tallahassee Police officer. He evaluates the need for additional security and communicates those needs to the owners. When he becomes aware of a new wrinkle in underage persons obtaining alcohol, he works with Respondent to prevent the practice. He assists the doormen in identifying fraudulent I.D.s. Respondent has always implemented whatever recommendations Beemon makes to them. Generally, the security measures used by Respondent have proven effective. From time to time, Petitioner will try a “sting operation” at Respondent’s establishment by sending a minor into Respondent’s bar to see if they are able to purchase alcohol. On every such “sting operation” Petitioner’s decoy was identified and stopped at the front door and was not allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. Carrie Bruce is Petitioner’s special agent for the Tallahassee area. She is familiar with most Tallahassee alcoholic establishments and her testimony establishes that Respondent’s establishment is not considered a “problem bar” by Petitioner and is considered to be better than other area bars in preventing underage drinking. To the best of the owner’s knowledge and Beemon’s knowledge, no one has ever knowingly served a drink to a minor at Respondent’s establishment. Further, Respondent has never previously been charged with serving alcohol to minors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
Findings Of Fact Bay Street, Inc., trading as Howard's G" String, is located at 102 E. Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings, (Beverage License No. 269l9, Series 4-COP) Case No. 81-1825 contains ten counts, five of which were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner. The remaining counts involve alleged lewd and lascivious acts and an alleged offer to commit prostitution. These charges were based on an undercover investigation by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in May, June, August and September, 1980. The testimony of Officer Beacham established that on May 8, 1980, the dancer Karen Wood rubbed a male patron's groin with her buttocks and the dancer Rosetta Smith allowed a male patron to rub her groin area. This conduct took place while the dancers were performing for individual customers. In both cases, their breasts were bare and in close proximity to the patrons' faces. The testimony of Officer Bennett established that on June 26, 1980, the dancer Catherine E. Maryon permitted a male patron to fondle her groin area and to fondle her nude breasts. This conduct continued over a period of about five minutes while Maryon was performing for the patron. The testimony of Officer Hall established that on August 30, 1980, the dancer Darlene Veldon Hughes allowed a male patron to massage her genital area and the insides of her legs while she was performing for him. She wore a bikini brief, but was otherwise nude during this procedure. The testimony of Officer Perret established that on September 2, 1980, the dancer Trudy A. Blincoe offered to engage in sexual intercourse with him for $100. This was established by the nature of their discussion and her statement that she would give "no oral sex, just straight sex." Petitioner conducted a separate investigation of Respondent in February, 1981, through its beverage officers who visited the licensed premises in undercover capacities. This investigation culminated in the 29 charges contained in Case No. 81-1824. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink on February 11, 1981. The drink was delivered by the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who received the money for the drink. Kathy also approached Johnson and the dancer Laura on that date, and asked if Laura wanted another drink. Laura then asked Johnson for a drink, which he purchased from Kathy. Johnson's testimony further established that the dancer Ursala Kadlecik asked him to purchase a drink for her on February 27, 1981. The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 18, 1981, the dancer Barbie asked him to buy drinks for her on two occasions. Arguelles purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 11, 1981, the dancers Susan and Elizabeth each asked him to buy drinks for them, and on February 14 and 27, 1981, Susan again asked Lachman to buy drinks for her. On February 18, 1981, the dancers Karen, Angie and April each asked Lachman to buy drinks for them. He purchased the drinks as requested on each of these occasions. The testimony of Beverage Officer Balaguer established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink and on February 18, 1981, the dancer Laura asked him to buy her a drink. He purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that on February 25, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink. She repeated the request and Sams purchased the drink. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Marty approached him and performed her dance at his table. During this procedure, she rubbed his hand against her groin and also held it against her nude breast. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that the dancer Susan performed dances at his table on February 25 and 27, 1981. On each occasion she rubbed her nude breasts against his face. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 5, 1981, the dancer Susan suggested a "date" to him. She stated that the price was $75 for the night and $25 as a penalty for her to leave the bar. She also stated that they would go to a motel and she would do "anything he wanted." Johnson's testimony further established that on February 11, 1981, the dancer Lisa suggested that she and Johnson go to a "party" at a motel. She stated that the price for this would be $30 for the bar plus either $50 for one- half hour, $100 for an hour or $200 for the whole-night. She also said Johnson could do "anything" so long as he did not "get rough." The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 28, 1981, the dancer Lucy Brightwell offered to "go out" with him. She stated that the charge for this service was $100, which included $25 to leave the bar. She told Arguelles that he could do anything he wanted except "the back door." She also motioned to her vaginal area and stated, "straight fuck." The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 27, 1981, he discussed leaving the bar with the dancer Ramona Strickland. The discussion involved three dancers leaving with the three undercover beverage officers (Lachman, Sams and Rowe) . Strickland stated that the price would include $25 for each dancer to leave the bar and a total charge of $248. Lachman later paid the bartender-waitress, Kathy, $88 for the three dancers to leave the bar. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that he discussed going to a hotel room with the dancer Belinda on February 27, 1981. She stated that the charge for this would be $25 to leave the bar and $50 per one-half hour for each dancer. The testimony of Beverage Officer Rowe established that on February 25, 1981, he discussed "going out" with the dancers Laura and Belinda. He asked Laura if he would "get his money s worth," and she said that he would and that she was "good in bed." Rowe continued the discussion on February 27, 1981, when he asked Laura if the "deal was still on." She stated that it was and asked him if he had made room arrangements. Laura also stated that she did not want "to fuck" in the same room with others. Rowe also discussed the transaction with the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who told him to meet the dancers at the side door and to have them back in 30 minutes. Although no records were produced to establish that the dancers identified herein were employed by Respondent, the fact of employment was evident from the control exercised over them by the bartender-waitress, their costumes, their periodic dances on stage and their movements from one customer to another while performing individual dances and collecting fees for this service. Testimony in this regard was given by all Petitioner's witnesses and was not rebutted by Respondent. It was not shown that the identification of some dancers by their first names or nicknames only created any ambiguity in the charges or prejudice to Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find Respondent guilty as charged in Counts l through 7, 9 through 17, 19, 21 through 24 and 26 through 29, Case No. 81-1824, and Count 9, Case No. 81-1825. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss all other charges against Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner suspend Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 26-919 for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-007441, series 2COP, for the licensed premises known as Javis Pub located at 600 North Highway 17-92, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. At all material times, Jose Javier Zudaire (Javi) was the sole owner and officer of Respondent. At all material times, a person known only by the name of John was employed by Respondent as a bartender. On April 7, 1988, Sandra D. Owens, who was employed by the Seminole County Narcotic Unit, entered Javis Pub in an undercover capacity with a confidential informant who had advised the law enforcement authorities that illicit drugs were being sold in the bar. At the time, the informant was negotiating with Javi for the purchase of the bar. The informant introduced Ms. Owens to Javi. In the ensuing conversation, Javi told Ms. Owens that he had not gotten home until 7:00 a.m. that day because he had been out taking cocaine the prior evening. Ms. Owens complained that cocaine was hard to come by. Javi began to discuss the quality of the cocaine that he could obtain and the prices for which he could obtain it. Javi then offered to get Ms. Owens a free sample of his cocaine, but she stated that she would rather purchase it. They then agreed that she would return the next evening and purchase 1/8 ounce for $200 from John, who was the bartender. When Ms. Owens returned the next evening, John was not there. Javi and Ms. Owens began conversing. After a short time, Javi picked up a pack of cigarettes that Ms. Owens had laid down on the bar, emptied it of most of the cigarettes, took the pack into a back room behind the bar, and returned with the pack, into which he had placed 1/8 ounce of cocaine. Javi then placed the pack in front of Ms. Owens, who placed two one-hundred dollar bills under a nearby ashtray. Javi completed the transaction by taking the two bills. Before Ms. Owens left the bar, Javi assured her that she would like the cocaine. She left the bar, but returned later in the evening to thank Javi and tell him that she would be leaving town for a week or so. During the next couple of weeks, Ms. Owens spoke by telephone with Javi and John about seven times. Although she in fact had remained in town, she told them that she was visiting friends in Houston and gave them a telephone number in Houston to call her. Through an arrangement with the Houston police department, they took the calls on a private line and forwarded all messages to Ms. Owens. On the evening of April 21, 1988, Ms. Owens returned to the bar. She met with John, who told her that he would sell her an ounce of cocaine if she returned to the bar at midnight. Ms. Owens returned to the bar at 11:55 p.m. on April 21. John was waiting outside for her. Together, they entered the bar where they were joined by Javi. Javi asked John if he was going to take care of Ms. Owens. Javi then left the bar and John went to the back room behind the bar and returned with a white envelope containing cocaine. He removed the envelope from a back pocket and Ms. Owens asked him if he wanted to complete the transaction out in the open. He told her not to worry about "my people." While seated at the bar in good lighting with other persons present, Ms. Owens counted out, onto the surface of the bar, the $1300 cash that they had agreed upon and John gave her the cocaine. Shortly after purchasing the cocaine, Javi returned to the bar, asked Ms. Owens if John had taken care of her, and assured her that she would like the cocaine. Petitioner's policy calls for the revocation of an alcoholic beverage license whenever illegal drug sales repeatedly take place in the licensed premises, the premises are declared a public nuisance, and the premises are a place of dealing, storing, selling, or using illegal drugs; the licensee sells a controlled substance one or more times; or an employee makes three or more sales of a controlled substance on the licensed premises and in an open manner so as to indicate culpable negligence on the part of the licensee in the management of the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29(1)(a) and (c) Florida Statutes, and revoking the subject alcoholic beverages license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida ROBERT E. MEALE 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 17th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted. 3. First and last sentences adopted. Remainder rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 4-6 . Adopted. 7. Rejected as legal argument. 8-12. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard A. Colgrove, Esquire Firm of Thomas C. Greene, Esquire 212 North Park Avenue Post Office Box 695 Sanford, Florida 32772-0693 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The amended Administrative complaint, forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 1987, alleges that Respondent is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of alcohol and substance abuse; that Respondent attempted to treat patients while under the influence of alcohol, constituting gross or repeated malpractice or failure to practice medicine with the level of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; and that Respondent failed to fulfill a statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician. After lengthy discovery and negotiations and Respondent's submittal to an inpatient mental and physical examination, the parties filed a stipulation substantially limiting the issue to the conditions under which Respondent should be allowed to return to the practice of medicine and appropriate monitoring once he returns to practice. At the final hearing, DPR presented the testimony of two witnesses: Lynn Hankes, M. D., qualified as expert in addictionology without objection, treated Dr. Pigg for alcoholism in 1985 and examined him as an inpatient in January, 1988. Robert A. Goetz, M. D., qualified without objection as an expert in the field of impaired physicians, has been the director of Florida's Physicians' Recovery Network since February 1988, and has known Dr. Pigg since shortly after that time. Respondent's sole witness was Milton R. Burglass, M.D., qualified without objection as an expert in psychiatry and in addiction treatment. Dr. Burglass reviewed Dr. Pigg's records and files and interviewed him on April 7, 1988, in anticipation of this hearing. After the hearing the transcript was filed and both parties submitted proposed recommended orders. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are found in the attached appendix.
Findings Of Fact William Larry Pigg is, and has been at all time material, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0040625. The parties in their prehearing stipulation filed on February 15, 1988, agree to the following: Peitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Since at least the summer of 1984, Respondent has had a problem with alcohol abuse. On or about June 13, 1985, Respondent entered the Impaired Physician's Program. Respondent completed an alcohol treatment program in Miami, Florida. Thereafter, Respondent also completed an extended program in Mississippi. On or about December 17, 1985, Respondent was granted staff privileges at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Melbourne, Florida. In order to obtain staff privileges, Respondent signed a statement agreeing to do the following: to abide by the Aftercare Con- tract of the Mississippi State Medical Association Impaired Physician's Program; and to submit to blood alcohol levels [sic] at any time at the request of any physician on the staff of Holmes Regional Medical Center. In or about April 1986, Respondent began to abuse alcohol again. On or about April 12, 1986, Respondent was attempting to perform a right hip reduction on a patient at Holmes Regional Medical Center. The patient in question was legally intoxicated and a large muscular man. Respondent, in attempting to relax the patient, ordered a large dose of narcotics, including Demerol and Nubain, as well as Phenergan and Valium. On or about the evening of April 12, 1986 or the morning of April 13, 1986, Respondent left the emergency room, took a Phenergan tablet and went home. Phenergan is the brand name for prometnazine Hydrochloride. Phenergan can cause drowsiness or impair the mental and/or physical abilities of the individual taking the drug. Later on the same evening, the Emergency Department Physician, Dr. Wagner, spoke with Dr. Pigg by telephone in reference to two patients with fractures that required orthopedic intervention. Respondent agreed to come and resume care for the patients. However, Respondent never came to the medical center and could not be located by police. On or about April 16, 1986, Respondent's wife contacted the Melbourne Police Department because her husband had come home intoxicated. On or about June 7, 1986, Respondent was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving. On or about June 30, 1986, the Director of the Florida Medical Foundation Committee on Impaired Physicians, Roger A. Goetz, M.D., advised the Petitioner, by letter, that Respondent was not progressing satisfactorily with the program and had not complied with all aspects of his aftercare contract. Respondent is and has been at all times alleged in the above stipulated facts, unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of alcohol abuse. No evidence was presented as to substance abuse, other than alcohol. Nor was there evidence that Dr. Pigg suffers from a mental condition. Although his records reflect some prior diagnosis of a passive/aggressive personality disorder, the prevailing thought in the addictionology community is that psychiatric diagnoses are invalid until an individual has been sober long enough to assure that the problem is not solely the alcohol's effect on the individual. There is no evidence that Dr. Pigg has had this requisite period of sobriety since 1984, and particularly the time that he was examined by Dr. Burglass, the only psychiatrist to testify in this proceeding. Of the experts who testified, Dr. Hankes is most familiar with Dr. Pigg, having been his primary treating physician in the past, and having examined him recently over several days as an inpatient. Dr. Hankes found that Dr. Pigg progressed from the mid stage of alcoholism to the early late stage of this disease between 1985 and 1988. In addition to Dr. Hankes' program at South Miami Hospital, Dr. Pigg has undergone primary treatment at a series of facilities in Georgia, Mississippi and Florida, all of which have an excellent reputation. At this point, in Dr. Hankes' opinion, he is a treatment failure. He has, at various times in his treatment experience also undergone detoxification at a Myers Act facility, attempted Antabuse therapy, and tried and rejected Alcoholics Anonymous. In spite of the past failures, the experts concurred that Dr. Pigg, like other alcoholics, is capable of recovery and that once recovered, Dr. Pigg would be capable of practicing medicine safely. All concurred that the recovery must be verified prior to Dr. Pigg's return to practice, and that thereafter the recovery must be monitored for an unforeseeable period of time. Dr. Hankes' advice, based on his concern as Dr. Pigg's treatment provider and primary therapist, is a six-part program: that addiction therapy continue on an outpatient basis, at least weekly, by a certified alcohol or addiction professional; that Dr. Pigg engage in psychotherapy with a qualified psychiatrist knowledgeable about addictive disease, the frequency to be determined by the psychiatrist; that a primary internist or family general practitioner monitor his physical well-being, especially his liver dysfunction; that Dr. Pigg participate in Alcoholics Anonymous, with a lay individual sponsor, as well as engage in International Doctors in Alcoholics Anonymous with a recovering physician sponsor; that Dr. Pigg be assigned a monitoring physician, knowledgeable in addictive disease, who has the authority to require random, unannounced surprise testing of blood or urine and that personal contact be made every two weeks and telephone contact in the alternate weeks; that the treating and monitoring individuals report on a quarterly basis to Dr. Roger Goetz, the Recovery Network director and that at the end of a two-year period Dr. Pigg be examined again by Dr. Hankes who would make his recommendation to Dr. Goetz. Dr. Pigg would also have the right to go to another AMA approved treatment provider for a second opinion. Dr. Hankes distinguishes between the state of being "dry" or free from alcohol use for a period, and recovery from alcoholism which requires a personal transformation with some undefined indicators. Dr. Hankes is convinced that the latter state is essential for real recovery and that Alcoholics Anonymous is the most effective, though not exclusive, route to that state. Although Dr. Hankes recommends a two year period during which Dr. Pigg would not be permitted to practice, he concedes that recovery could be effective in less time and that he would readily endorse his return to practice if the recovery were completed sooner. He describes Dr. Pigg as a "very competent physician", a "very bright guy", a "multi-talented individual, who flies airplanes and does wonderful things in his life." None can predict the time required for recovery, but each of the three experts recommends a period of one to two years of verified sobriety prior to the return to practice. Dr. Burglass recommends neither Alcoholics Anonymous participation nor the multi-part program outlined by Dr. Hankes. Since Alcoholics Anonymous and the other treatment/recovery models have been unsuccessful, Dr. Burglass suggests that Dr. Pigg be allowed to devise his own method of achieving recovery; he emphasizes that the goal, and not the route to that goal, is the concern here. He recommends that sobriety be verified for a period of one year and thereafter Dr. Pigg be allowed to return to practice with monitoring for approximately three years. The evidence, weighed and considered as a whole, fails to establish that an absolute two-year suspension from medical practice is necessary or that involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous is essential.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That William Larry Pigg, M.D. be suspended from the practice of medicine for an indefinite period, provided that he be given an opportunity to appear before the Board at twelve month intervals to demonstrate that he can resume the competent practice of medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients. That demonstration should include, as a minimum: a ) That he has totally abstained from the use of alcohol for a period of twelve months, as evidenced by frequent unannounced random collection of blood samples by an agent designated by the Board. That he has been under the continuous care and supervision of a physician qualified to provide addiction therapy and that, if recommended by that individual after a necessary period of sobriety, he has also undergone a psychiatric evaluation to determine the existence of mental disease or disorder. If detected, the disease or disorder must be treated. That he has been evaluated successfully participated in Alcoholics Anonymous or other similar peer support group program. Successful participation means frequent regular attendance at meetings and the association with a qualified sponsor from the program. That he has been evaluated and recommended for return to practice by Dr. Hankes or other treatment professional designated by the Board. However, if the recommendation is negative, Dr. Pigg should be permitted to obtain a second opinion independent of the Board's designated evaluator, from an individual other than that described in b), above, who is also qualified in the field of addictionology. The length and type of monitoring necessary once Dr. Pigg returns to practice should be determined at that time, based on recommendations of the professionals responsible for assisting in his recovery. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 4th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0225 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. 3-13. Adopted in paragraph 2, incorporating the parties pre-hearing stipulation. 14. Adopted in paragraph 7. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-4. Incorporated in Issues and Background statement. 5. Adopted in paragraph 2, incorporating the parties' prehearing stipulation. 6-8. Included in Background Statement. 9-12. Rejected as unnecessary restatement of the witnesses' testimony. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3. Included in Background Statement. 15-16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. 19-20. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. 23-24. Incorporated in substance in the Background statement. 25-28. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11, otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 29. Adopted by implication in paragraph 12. 30-31. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Abstinence alone is insufficient. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 3, 11, and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John Namey, Esquire 22 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Deborah J. Miller, Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2400 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice To Show Cause and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jose B. Medina ("Medina"), holds alcoholic beverage license number 16-07324, series 2-COP. The licensed premises are known as C.J.'s Pizza and Subs C.J.'s is located at 5150 Coconut Creek Parkway, Margate, Broward County, Florida. In June of 1990, Detective Bukata of the Broward County Sheriffs Office (BSO) conducted an undercover narcotics investigation involving Medina and C.J.'s Pizza and Subs. Detective Bukata negotiated with Medina several times at C.J.'s for the purchase of several kilograms of cocaine. However, a transaction was never consummated due to Medina's requirement that approximately $46,000.00 in cash be paid in advance. After several unsuccessful attempts at negotiations, Detective Bukata referred the open investigation to his partner, Detective Barnhouse, sometime in the spring of 1991. This was due in part to new information being obtained from confidential informants as well as Medina's reputation in the community for dealing in stolen property. On or about May 28, 1991, two "Uzi" semi-automatic pistols were stolen in a residential burglary in Coral Springs, Florida. Subsequently, Detective Barnhouse was notified by a confidential informant that Medina offered to sell these weapons for $250.00 each. On May 30, 1992, Detective Barnhouse purchased the two semi-automatic pistols from Medina at the licensed premises. The serial numbers on the weapons were identical to those which were stolen in the burglary. The weapons were still in their original packaging and had a price tag of $875.00 each. Medina offered to sell Detective Barnhouse more stolen weapons and was instructed not to deface the serial numbers. Medina either knew or should have known that the weapons were stolen. In June of 1991, Detective Barnhouse began conducting negotiations with Medina regarding the purchase of several kilograms of cocaine. Detective Barnhouse met several times with Medina at C.J.'s, had several telephone conversations, and openly displayed several thousands of dollars in an attempt to purchase cocaine. However, as in Detective Bukata's prior dealings with Medina, the negotiations were stalled due to Medina's cash advance requirement. On August 23, 1991, Detective Barnhouse offered to purchase a smaller quantity of cocaine from Medina. Subsequently, Detective Barnhouse met with Medina at the licensed premises and was shown two plastic bags containing approximately sixty grams of cocaine. After the display, Medina returned the cocaine to a storage area in the kitchen. Subsequently, he was arrested by Detectives Bukata and Barnhouse. The substance displayed by and subsequently seized from Medina tested positively as cocaine during field testing. Laboratory tests confirmed that contents of the packages was cocaine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jose B. Medina, d/b/a C.J.'s Pizza and Subs, license number 16-07324, series 2-COP, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. DANIEL 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 25th day of February, 1992.
