Findings Of Fact Willie Norman, Jr. d/b/a Paradise Cafe holds 2-COP beverage license and was so licensed at all times here relevant. In August, 1977 Willie Norman was in the hospital where he had a gall bladder operation. During this time on August 7 and 14, Gainesville police officers observed the Paradise Cafe open after hours on consecutive Sunday nights. Gainesville City Ordinance No. 2082 (Exhibit 9) prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sundays after 11 p.m. in the city of Gainesville. On 7 August 1977 the police found the establishment open at approximately 3 a.m. with 30 to 40 patrons in the premises and Ike Norman apparently in charge. The following Sunday night on August 14 the police raided the premises at 11:30 p.m. on Sunday night and found 40 to 50 patrons in the establishment with Ike behind the bar and Manuel Norman serving beer. When Manuel Norman was arrested, Ike stated that he (Ike) was running the business because the licensee was sick and that if anyone was to be arrested it should be him. After receiving the police reports, the premises were inspected by beverage agents on 30 August 1977 and Ike Norman told the agent that he was running the business for his son, the licensee, who was home sick. On 7 October 1978 two beverage agents entered the Paradise Cafe on a routine inspection, and, while looking in the men's room, one of the agents observed a brown paper bag, the contents of which he found suspicious. A subsequent analysis of the contents disclosed that the bag contained 14 grams of cannabis. No evidence was presented that licensee or any employee of licensee knew or should have known that the cannabis was on the premises. Willie Norman, Jr., Ike Norman and Manuel Lee Norman are brothers. Ike was the licensee of the cafe several years ago when it was named the Red Top Cafe. In 1973, Ike was convicted of possession of alcoholic beverages for sale without a license. He sold the business to his brother, Willie, who took over the lease and first became licensed in 1975-76. According to Willie's testimony, while he was in the hospital during the month of August, 1977, he left Manuel Norman in charge. He was aware that Ike could not legally be employed at the business because of Ike's criminal record. Willie expressed no knowledge of any of the other charges preferred against his license.
The Issue Whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed, for an alleged violation of Sections 562.12 and 562.02, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by Petitioner. The hearing was originally scheduled for December 8, 1977, but Respondent filed a motion for continuance which was granted by the Hearing Officer, and the hearing was rescheduled for January 18, 1978. Another hearing on that date precluded reaching the instant case and therefore the matter was again continued until January 30, 1978. At the hearing, Respondent moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Notice of Hearing issued by the Hearing Officer on November 21, 1977, was defective in that it did not adequately describe Petitioner's Notice to Show Cause or attach it to the Notice of Hearing. The motion was denied upon a determination that Respondent had adequately been placed on notice as to the nature of the offenses charged and due to the fact that the notice to show cause had been sent by certified mail to Respondent and that the receipt thereof on August 13, 1977, which reflected his signature, was not contested. Further, Respondent's motion for continuance indicates that his counsel was aware of the subject matter of the charges. Additionally, if such had not been the case, Respondent had more than ample opportunity during the periods in which the case was continued to seek amplification or clarification of the issues involved as set forth in the Notice of Hearing. Respondent also inquired as to whether Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, requires that the Hearing Officer have access to a hearing transcript prior to rendering a Recommended Order to the Petitioner. The undersigned Hearing Officer ruled that such a transcript is unnecessary under applicable law and regulation, specifically Rule 28-5.25(7), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that at a hearing during which the services of a court reporter have been retained, any party who wishes a written copy of the testimony shall order the same at his own expense. Upon inquiry by the Hearing Officer, both parties to the proceedings indicated that they did not intend to order a transcript of the testimony adduced at the hearing. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer advised respondent that the Recommended Order in this matter would be prepared without access to such a transcript.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harold V. Edwards, holds License No. 30-23, Series 1-COP, issued to him in the name of "Edwards Store,' Chattahoochee, Florida, and held the same at the time of the alleged violations charged by Petitioner in this matter. A series 1-COP license authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on the licensed premises only. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Testimony of Sams) At approximately 10:00 a.m. on August 15, 1976, Petitioner's beverage officer, Gary E. Sams, drove a paid informant, Guy Williams, to a place near Respondent's place of business where they met another beverage agent, Fred Miller, who was in a separate vehicle. At that time, Sams searched Williams and determined that he had no alcoholic beverages or money on his person. Sams gave him $5.00. Williams then proceeded to drive Sams' vehicle to Edwards' Store with Sams in a prone position in the back seat. Upon arrival, Williams entered the store and ordered a half pint of Seagrams gin from a short, chunky, heavy built, white woman behind the counter. He also purchased a beer. He observed the woman go through a door in the back of the store, and she thereafter returned with a sealed bottle labeled "Seagrams Extra Dry Gin." She gave him $2.20 change from a $5.00 bill which he had given her. Williams thereupon returned to the car outside and he and Sams returned to the area where Miller had been waiting. Sams opened the bottle and determined that it was liquor by its smell. He permitted Williams to take two drinks from the bottle and Williams determined that it was gin. Sams placed an identification label on the bottle which he and Williams signed and it was later placed in Petitioner's evidence room in their Tallahassee office. On some date between August 15 and August 29, 1976, Sams inspected Respondent's premises at which time Respondent's wife, Louise Edwards, signed a state inspection form. Sams noted that she met the general description of the woman who had sold Williams alcoholic beverages on August 15. Mrs. Edwards told Sams at this time that she and her husband were the only persons who worked at the store. Sams thereafter inserted her name on the identification label of the bottle turned over to him by Williams to reflect that she had been the seller of the alcoholic beverages. At the hearing, Respondent attacked the credibility of Williams based on what are considered by the Hearing Officer to be minor discrepancies in his testimony. It is found that his testimony, in conjunction with that of Sams, is sufficient to establish that Louise Edwards sold him a half-pint bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin on August 15, 1978, at Respondent's licensed premises. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Williams, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On August 24, 1976, a warrant was issued by the Circuit Court of Gadsden County, Florida, authorizing the search of Respondent's premises, together with the curtilage and all outbuildings. On August 29, 1976, at about 10:30 a.m., Sams, Miller, and other beverage agents and county law enforcement officials entered Respondent's store at which time Sams served the search warrant on Louise Edwards. She went to the living quarters of the building behind the store and Miller heard her go down the hallway and close a door. Miller proceeded down the hallway and found that one door at the end of the hallway was locked. When Mrs. Edwards was asked if she had the key, she replied in the negative, stating that it was her daughter's room and that no one was allowed to go in. At that point, Miller opened the lock with a jackknife. In the room, the agents found a number of cases of alcoholic beverages containing some 252 bottles of assorted sizes and brands of whiskey, vodka, rum, and gin. The bottles were found in a paper sack which Mrs. Edwards said had been given to her husband by a friend and were "not for resale." The agents inventoried the contents of the room, placed identification tags on the items and placed the seized articles in the evidence room of Respondent at Tallahassee. Although the room where the liquor was found was once a separate building, it has been joined to the main building by means of the hallway and there was free access between the structures. Respondent was in a bed in the living quarters at the time of the search. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4)
Recommendation That Petitioner impose a civil penalty of $500 against Respondent, Harold V. Edwards, under the authority of Section 561.29(1)(b) and (4), Florida Statutes, for violation of Sections 562.02 and 562.12, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack A. Harnett, Esquire Post Office Box 706 Quincy, Florida 32351 Charles Nuzum, Director Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation State of Florida Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Sonny's Italian Restaurant and Pizzeria, Inc., d/b/a Sonny's Italian Restaurant, at 247 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida, Respondent or Sonny's, holds Beverage License No. 23-2197 Series 4-COP. Acting upon the request of, and in concert with, the Miami Peach Police Department, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco instituted an investigation of Sonny's during the period of April 25, 1981 through May 13, 1981. Much of the investigation was conducted by beverage officers performing undercover surveillance. On April 25, 1981, while operating undercover, Beverage Officer Luis J. Terminello, while in the lounge area at Sonny's, was offered oral sex by a patron known as "Wallflower" for $45. On April 26 Terminello engaged in a conversation in Sonny's lounge with a black female patron known as "Sherrill" who offered to commit oral sex for $25. On April 29 he again was approached in Sonny's by "Sherrill" who offered oral sex for $25. Later that same evening he engaged in conversation with a female patron known as "Lisa," who offered oral sex for $40. On the same evening, while engaged in conversation with a patron known as "Annette," he was offered oral sex for $50. On April 30, 1981, Terminello engaged in conversation with "Sherrill" in Sonny's lounge and was offered oral sex for $30. On May 2 Terminello engaged a patron known as "Maxine" in conversation and was offered oral sex for $20. He later learned Maxine is a male. On May 3, 1981 in Sonny's lounge Terminello engaged in conversation with Annette who offered him sexual intercourse for $50. All these conversations took place at the bar or in the vicinity thereof while the lounge and bar area were crowded with customers. These acts of prostitution were offered to be committed in Terminello's automobile or in the restroom at Sonny's. While Terminello was in Sonny's lounge during the investigation period he observed the females who had solicited him talking with other male patrons. He also saw them leave the lounge with male patrons and return some 45 minutes later. On the April 25 visit Terminello observed the barmaid, Susan, snorting a white power from a spoon, and, on at least three other occasions, he observed patrons at the dark part of the bar snorting a white powder. At other times he noticed what was recognized by him as marijuana smoke in the bar, lounge and restrooms and saw patrons smoking what appeared to him to be marijuana cigarettes. During the period of the investigation Terminello became known in Sonny's as a purchaser of controlled substances. On April 30 Robert Jones, a beverage officer, and Terminello purchased a substance they thought to be cocaine from a patron known as "Ice Cream." The transaction occurred in the men's room in the restaurant side of Sonny's and, following the transaction, "Ice Cream" lit a marijuana cigarette and passed it around to Terminello and Jones. Subsequent lab reports confirmed the cigarette to be marijuana but the substance bought was not cocaine. On 2 Hay, while in the bar area at Sonny's, Terminello was offered Quaaludes and he purchased six of them from a patron known as Don. On May 3, while engaged in conversation with Annette at the bar, Terminello said he was interested in getting cocaine. Annette told him she could get some from Susan, the barmaid, for $70 a gram. After he agreed on the price Annette went behind the bar, talked quietly to Susan, and both girls left the bar and went into the ladies' restroom. Terminello followed them to the door of the ladies' room and caught a glimpse of a package being handed by Susan to Annette. Terminello returned to the bar, where he was shortly joined by Annette, who delivered one gram of cocaine in exchange for $70. About an hour later, Terminello returned to Sonny's and arranged for another purchase of cocaine from Susan by Annette. After this transaction was completed Terminello, while sitting at the bar, called Susan over to order a beer and say "Thanks." She replied that she wasn't "holding" all the time but when she was he was welcome. Later the same evening in Sonny's, Terminello made two purchases of what he thought was cocaine from patrons "Charles" and "Ice Cream." Subsequent lab analysis of these purchases disclosed they were not cocaine. During the same investigative period Beverage Officer Carmen Gonzalez and Miami Beach Police Officer Joan Donnelly visited Sonny's on several occasions as undercover agents. On April 27, 1981, while seated at the bar Gonzalez and Donnelly negotiated a purchase of marijuana from bartender Gerald (Jerry) Hamburger. He told them he could provide marijuana at $30 an ounce. When they agreed he left the bar and walked toward the restaurant from where he shortly returned saying he would have to send out for it. Thirty to forty-five minutes later Jerry delivered the marijuana at the agreed price. Gonzalez and Donnelly returned to Sonny's on April 30 and told Jerry they would like to purchase marijuana and he introduced them to the pizza delivery man, "Bobby." When Bobby asked if they wanted anything, Gonzalez told him she was interested in purchasing marijuana. Bobby replied that he would have to go out and get it. He returned some thirty minutes later and motioned for the officers to accompany him to the lounge in the ladies' restroom. There he removed a packet of marijuana from his sock and gave it to Gonzalez who paid him $30. On May 1 Gonzalez and Donnelly returned to Sonny's. Jerry wasn't working so they asked the bartender, "Ray", where they could find Bobby. When told he was on the restaurant side of Sonny's, they proceeded to the restaurant area, where they were seen and greeted by Bobby. When Gonzalez asked if they could get marijuana, Bobby replied yes but he would have to go out for it. Some thirty minutes later Bobby took Gonzalez and Donnelly into the ladies' restroom in the lounge area where he delivered one ounce of marijuana and Gonzalez paid him $30. Gonzalez and Donnelly also became acquainted with two band members working in Sonny's called Waco and Termine. On May 3, Termine told them he could got good coke for them; and, when they agreed, he walked to the back of the restaurant and came out with another man. The other man couldn't provide a full gram but could provide three "dimes" for $10 each. He removed these foil- wrapped packets of cocaine from his pocket and handed them to Gonzalez, who paid him $30. On April 30, Gonzalez and Donnelly purchased a white powder, believed to be cocaine, from "Ice Cream." This transaction took place in the ladies' restroom in the lounge; and, following the sale, "Ice Cream" lit a marijuana cigarette and passed it around. While they were in the restroom "Diane" knocked on the door, came in and lit a second marijuana cigarette. The substance purchased from "Ice Cream," when tested, was found not to be cocaine. During the investigation, several patrons at Sonny's approached Gonzalez and Donnelly to sell them controlled substances. Joseph Chierico holds all of the stock in Sonny's. His son, Robert, serves as manager. According to their testimony, both are present at the establishment nearly every evening. Sonny's is open from 4:30 p.m. until 5:00 a.m., with deliveries of food on Miami Beach until 3:30 a.m. Each spends most of his time in the restaurant area but Robert, as manager, walks through the lounge and bar area frequently. Robert spends less than one-half of his time in the lounge side. Each testified he never saw any drugs brought into the licensed premises and when a customer complains about solicitation by a prostitute he tells the prostitute to leave. Richard Chierico testified that on many occasions he escorted patrons off the restaurant premises for use or sale of narcotics. If they hear about someone attempting to sell narcotics on the premises, they tell them to leave and not come back. Both Chiericos testified that they did not know Wallflower, Sherrill, Annette or Maxine; however, they did know a transsexual named Lisa who was not allowed on the premises because of suspicion of solicitation. Joseph Chierico testified he hired a band leader on a contract basis for a specified number of players and had nothing to do with the individual members of the band. Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted into evidence as business records purporting to show the employees of Sonny' a each week. No hours worked are shown on these exhibits, and Joseph Chierico, through whom the exhibits were offered, could not explain them. These records are maintained by the bookkeeper who did not testify. He prepares the payroll from which Chierico writes the employee's checks on Sunday nights. These exhibits indicate that Jerry was on duty only one day during the week ending 2 May 1981; but, without a witness to verify the accuracy of this record, they are insufficient to rebut the testimony of Gonzalez and Donnelly that Jerry was on duty as bartender on at least two nights when marijuana was purchased. Joseph Chierico became the sole shareholder of Sonny's on 30 October 1980 and executed the Personal Questionnaire (Form UBR 710-L), (Exhibit 4), on 31 October. However, the Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership (Form DBR 759-L), (Exhibit 1), was not filed wish the petitioner until April 9, 1981. Joseph Chierico testified that he has been the operator of Sonny's off and on for the past 25 years; that if he suspects any employees of using or selling drugs he gets rid of the suspected employee; that he sees many patrons using drugs and when he does, he tells them to leave; and that he vaguely recalls an incident involving the license several years ago but nothing came out of it. On rebuttal, Exhibits 7 and 8 were introduced into evidence. In Exhibit 7, the licensee was charged with changing corporate officers in 1969 without notifying the Beverage Department and with failing to disclose that Joseph Chierico held an interest in the business. Exhibit 8 is a STIPULATION executed June 21, 1971 in which Barbara Chierico, President of licensee and estranged wife of Joseph Chierico, agreed to pay a $500 fine and submit a management contract to the Beverage Department for approval.
The Issue Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Rina Norman, did solicit Robert Hutter for the purpose of committing a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Heather Lovell did commit a lewd act, to-wit; oral copulation on one Steven Lee Hobson, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 12, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Susan Edith Laursen, did commit a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, on one Norman Eric Williams, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about July 20, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Mite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Connie Nadine Reeves did solicit Beverage Officers F. J. Dunbar and P. M. Roberts for the purposes of prostitution, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Terwell, Inc. This corporation is the holder of beverage license No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, to trade as Nite Gallery II at a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida. This license is held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has the responsibility of the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. On April 3, 1979, Officer Robert T. Hutter of the Orlando, Florida, Police Department went to the licensed premises at 1720 Lee Road. Officer Hutter was in the company of Police Officer Barrett of the same department. The two officers entered the bar in an undercover capacity and sat down and ordered a beer. After a moment, the officers were approached by a female who was a dancer in the licensed premises. The dancer's name was Rina Norman and in conversation Norman asked the officers if they wanted a "blow job" for $25.00. (This expression pertains to an offer to commit fellatio.) Rina Norman was subsequently arrested by Officer Hutter and was allowed to go to the back of the licensed premises to a dressing room area and to change from her "go go" outfit into street clothes. The suspect, Rina Norman, had also been seen dancing as a performer on the licensed premises prior to her apprehension. On the same evening, April 3, 1979, Officer Barrett had been contacted by two females in the licensed premises and from his encounter with those individuals determined to arrest them for assignation to commit prostitution or lewdness. The officer went outside briefly and then reentered the licensed premises to look for the two suspect females. One of the areas which he examined in his search for the suspects was an area in which there are two booths with curtains across the front opening of the cubicles. These booths are located down a hall leading to the female dancers' dressing room area which is on the west side of the bar. In looking in one of the booths, Officer Barrett pulled hack the curtain and found a woman identified as Heather Lovell committing an act of fellatio on a man who was in the booth with her. Lovell was-wearing a "go go" costume at the time she was seen involved in this activity. She was placed under arrest and went to the dressing room area to put on street clothes after the arrest was effected. The dressing room area which Lovell used was the same area used by Rina Norman. Lovell had also been seen by Officer Barrett in the licensed premises at an earlier time on the evening of April 3, 1979. Officers Hutter and Barrett went back to the licensed premises in the company of Beverage Officers Wallace and Boyd on April 12, 1979. At that time, Officer Hutter went to the booth area spoken of before to investigate for lewd acts. When Officer Butter pulled back the curtain to one of the booths, he observed Susan Laursen performing fellatio on a man located in the booth with her. Laursen and the man were arrested and Laursen went back to the dressing room area mentioned before to change into her street clothes. Beverage Officers Dunbar and Boyd returned to the licensed premises on July 20, 1979, at around 11:35 p.m. for the purpose of investigating alleged prostitution which was occurring in the licensed premises. The two officers seated themselves inside the bar area and they were approached by Connie Nadine Reeves, who sat by them and asked them if they would like to have a private party in the back, which would include nude dancing and a "blow job", meaning fellatio. Officer Dunbar asked if this entertainment was free and Reeves replied that, "No, the 'blow job' (fellatio) is $25.00 and dancing is $10.00." Beverage Officer Roberts had not heard this overture from Reeves and Dunbar asked Reeves to repeat her statements, which she did. Roberts then went with Reeves to the back part of the area of the hallway and the two booths which have been mentioned before. Beverage Officer Dunbar went outside to pain the assistance of the other Beverage Officer and the local police officers for purposes of effecting an arrest of Connie Nadine Reeves. Roberts followed Reeves down the hallway and into one of the booths. Reeves had motioned Roberts to follow her to this location. Reeves repeated the statement that it would cost $25.00 for a "blow job" (fellatio) and Roberts gave her $30.00 and she replied that she would keep $5.00 for a tip. Roberts seated himself on a chair in the room and Reeves told him to "Go ahead and pull it out" and he replied that he was not turned on and that she should dance. Reeves took her clothes off and danced for a few moments and then there was some problem with the music and she yelled out of the room for someone to get the jukebox working. This problem with the jukebox occurred a couple of times. At this point, Roberts arrested Reeves for violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, pertaining to lewd acts. In the interim, Beverage Officer Dunbar and the other law enforcement officers had entered or reentered the licensed premises and attempted to go up the hallway to the booth area and were confronted by a number of females in "go go" attire who tried to keep them from going into that area and in doing so stated that the area was private and was to be used by employees only, referring to the area of the booths. Officer Dunbar went back to the booth where Roberts had made his arrest and at this point Reeves was protesting her arrest and acting belligerent. Dunbar left that location and met Beverage Officer Wallace, who was talking to Ron Wells, a corporate officer of the Respondent. Wells was asked to go with Dunbar to try to convince Reeves to accompany the officers without further incident. The officers asked Wells if Reeves were his employee and Wells responded that she was. Wells was then told by Dunbar to straighten her out, meaning that if she did not get dressed they would take her into custody without clothing. Wells then talked to Reeves and she left and went to the dressing room mentioned before in this case and dressed herself. Reeves also stated that she was an employee at the licensed premises.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the beverage license of the Respondent, Terwell, Inc., No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, which allows the Respondent to trade as Nite Gallery II in a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner, having been issued license number 60-01280, Series 1- APS. No dispute exists that such license permits Respondent to make packaged sales of beer and wine at its establishment. Respondent's last known address is 148 West Avenue A, Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent's establishment is a convenience store. On or about April 17, 2002, Jeremiah Alexander Maxie went to Respondent's establishment for the specific purpose of attempting to purchase beer. Mr. Maxie is employed as an investigative aide for Petitioner. At the time that he visited Respondent's establishment, Mr. Maxie was under 21 years of age; he was 17 years of age, having been born on August 10, 1984. Mr. Maxie did nothing to alter his appearance in an attempt to affect his age. Mr. Maxie attempted to purchase beer at twelve other locations on April 17, 2002. He was paid $35 by Petitioner for that day. Mr. Maxie entered Respondent's establishment at approximately 4:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, approximately 20 seconds later, Petitioner's Special Agent Danny Stoops, who was undercover, entered Respondent's establishment. Agent Stoops observed the actions of Mr. Maxie. Agent Stoops is a 24-year veteran with Petitioner. He gave Mr. Maxie instructions as to what to do. Agent Stoops instructed Mr. Maxie to attempt to purchase a Budweiser product and, if the clerk requested identification, for Mr. Maxie to politely set the beer down and leave. Mr. Maxie proceeded to the rear of Respondent's establishment to the coolers. He removed a can of beer, a Budweiser product, and proceeded to the cash register. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the particular type of Budweiser product. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie proceed from the coolers to the cash register although he did not observe the product that Mr. Maxie had obtained. Mr. Maxie gave the cashier/clerk, Armando Rodriguez, who is Respondent's owner, U.S. Currency as payment for the beer. Mr. Rodriguez placed the Budweiser product in a paper bag and gave Mr. Maxie a receipt, but Mr. Maxie did not look at the receipt. Mr. Maxie departed Respondent's establishment. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the denomination of currency that he gave to Mr. Rodriguez or the amount that he had paid for the beer. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie give Mr. Rodriguez the currency but did not observe the denomination. Agent Stoops departed Respondent's establishment approximately 15 to 20 feet behind Mr. Maxie. When they were outside, the purchased Budweiser product was given to Agent Stoops by Mr. Maxie. Both Agent Stoops and Mr. Maxie initialed the paper bag into which Mr. Rodriguez had placed the Budweiser product. Agent Stoops placed the Budweiser product in an evidence bag, tagged it with an evidence receipt bearing a control number, and secured the bagged evidence in the trunk of his vehicle. Agent Stoops removed the bagged evidence from the trunk of his vehicle and placed it in Petitioner's evidence vault. For hearing, Agent Stoops retrieved the bagged evidence from the evidence vault. The Budweiser product presented at hearing was a can of Bud Light Beer, which was still in the paper bag in which the beer was placed at the time of purchase. No challenge to the chain of custody of the can of beer was made and no problem exists as to the chain of custody of the can of beer. No receipt for the purchase of the Budweiser product was included in the bagged evidence. Agent Stoops could not independently recall that a receipt was presented to him by Mr. Maxie. Respondent entered into evidence cash register receipts for April 17, 2002, which do not reflect the purchase of any alcoholic beverage. However, the cash register receipts reflect, among other things, "taxable" and "grocery" items, not the particular items themselves, and "meat"; thereby, the cash register receipts differentiate only between "grocery" and "taxable" and "meat" items. Further, the cash register receipts are numbered 058616 through 058619, with times of day reflecting 16:05 through 16:09, and 058624 through 058627, with times of day reflecting 16:46 through 16:52. Not included in the cash register receipts are receipts numbered 058620 through 058623, with times of day reflecting 16:10 through 16:45. With the missing numbered-cash register receipts included, a total of 12 transactions were completed, but only eight transactions were offered and admitted into evidence. No explanation was presented for the missing eight transactions. Taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of the purchase of the Budweiser product by Mr. Maxie, not having a receipt is insufficient to show that the beer-purchase transaction did not occur. Moreover, the evidence is clear and convincing that the beer-purchase transaction did occur. The product purchased at Respondent's establishment by Mr. Maxie was a can of beer, a Budweiser product, a Bud Light. At the time of hearing, Mr. Rodriguez was 76 years of age and had owned Respondent's establishment for 36 years. He is Respondent's agent. Mr. Rodriguez speaks Spanish. At the time of hearing, an interpreter was provided for him. Mr. Rodriguez denies that he saw Mr. Maxie in Respondent's establishment and denies that he sold any beer to Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez failed to realize to whom he sold the can of beer. At the time Mr. Maxie purchased the can of beer from Respondent's establishment, Mr. Rodriguez was engaged in a conversation with another gentleman. Mr. Rodriguez did not ask Mr. Maxie any questions or ask for his identification. Mr. Maxie said nothing to suggest that he was 21 years of age or older. As a matter of fact, no evidence was presented that any conversation took place between Mr. Maxie and Mr. Rodriguez. The evidence further suggests that Mr. Rodriguez paid very little attention to Mr. Maxie even at the time of the purchase of the beer. Mr. Rodriguez did not knowingly and willfully sell the can of beer to a minor, i.e., Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez was negligent and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in preventing the sale of the can of beer to Mr. Maxie. No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order: Finding that Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, violated Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Imposing a fine of $1,000.00 payable within a time deemed appropriate; and Suspending the license of Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, for seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Valentin Rodriguez, Jr., Esquire Valentin Rodriguez, P.A. 318 Ninth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Danny Stoops, Agent Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 North Congress Avenue, No. 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the notice to show cause and that his license number 26-2026 be suspended for a period of fifteen days. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr. Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph S. Farley, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The Petitioner, Melvin E. Smith, has submitted a request to the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to issue him a new Series 2-APS beverage license and this request has been denied. The issue to be resolved by this Order is the question of the Petitioner's entitlement to the subject license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Melvin E. Smith, who trades as Melvin's Exxon in a location at 5057 U.S. 1, North, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, has applied for a new Series 2-APS beverage license. On July 5, 1979, the Director of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, replied to the request for license by denying that license application, with the stated grounds for denial being the alleged indication of lack of good moral character on the part of the Petitioner; specifically, a felony conviction within the last fifteen (15) years and beverage law conviction within the past five (5) years, which made the applicant unqualified per Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. The testimony in the course of the hearing revealed that in 1966 the Petitioner was convicted of breaking and entering, an offense against the laws of United States and a felony. Furthermore, on May 29, 1975, in the County Court of Duval County, Florida, Criminal Division, the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offense of refusing to allow a search of the premises in violation of Section 562.41, Florida Statutes, and received a fine of $50.00 together with $2.00 court cost. See Respondent's exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the Judgment and Sentence in that matter. Section 562.41, Florida Statutes, is a part of the Beverage Law, Enforcement Section.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Melvin E. Smith's request for a new Series 2-APS beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Melvin E. Smith 5057 U.S. 1 North Jacksonville, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about January 22, 1992, in DBR Case No. TA-39-91-0555. The Notice to Show Cause alleges that the Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., d/b/a Mako's Bay Club, through its employees, sold alcoholic beverages to minors on November 6, 1991, in violation of Sections 562.11(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). The Respondent denies the charges and also asserts mitigating circumstances and the Florida Responsible Vendor Act defense under Section 561.706, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., operates several establishments known as Mako's Bay Club in Pinellas County, Florida. All are licensed for consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. All are relatively large establishments that feature multiple bars and dancing. All cater to a relatively young clientele. All stress strict compliance with the Beverage Law, including the prohibition against sales to minors, and all employees receive training approved by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which includes training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees receive this training either before they begin working or within approximately a month of beginning work. In addition, the management of the establishments hold periodic meetings that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. On or about January 23, 1991, the Respondent opened a Mako's Bay Club at 901 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida, under alcoholic beverage license number 39-03295, Series 4-COP. Before the establishment opened for business, all employees received training approved by the Department under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which included training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees have received this training either before beginning work or within approximately a month of beginning work. Generally, new employees are not permitted to serve alcoholic beverages until completing this training, except under supervision. In addition, the management holds monthly meetings with all staff that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. 1/ The Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, at least, allows underage clientele (18 years old and up) to enter the premises on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On these nights, as on all others, clientele who appear to be relatively young are "carded" at the entrance. If they are under 21, the back of their right hand is marked in permanent ink with a large "X". If they are 21 or over, they are given a tight-fitting band to wear around their wrist. Bartenders and servers know they can only serve someone with the wrist band and without the "X" mark. If a customer has neither, and appears to be possibly under 21, the bartender or waitress is to ask to see proof of age. The bar's bouncers circulate during the evening and are alert to underage drinking, loose wrist bands, and underaged clientele in the company of authorized drinkers having more than one drink in front of them. Although the Department has investigated complaints concerning underage sales at establishments operated by the Respondent, prior to November 6, 1991, the Department never made a case of selling to minors against any establishment operated by the Respondent, and the Department has considered the Respondent to be in compliance with the Beverage Law prohibiting sales to minors. In response to complaints of underage drinking in the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, the Department conducted an investigation that included sending undercover underage operatives (aides) into the establishment under the supervision of Department special agents. The aides are selected from among applicants who are college students 18 to 19 years old and who look their age. Often, they aspire to careers in law enforcement. They are instructed to carry correct identification, not to dress to appear older than they are, not to try to deceive the management and employees of the establishment they are investigating, and to give their correct age and identification if asked. Following these instructions, they are to enter the premises and see if they can buy a drink. They operate in pairs, and each pair is accompanied by special agent, who keeps them in sight, particularly when they are attempting to make a buy. The investigation of the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa took place on November 6, 1991. Three teams of special agents and aides entered the premises separately between approximately 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. After a short period of orienting themselves and spreading out in the establishment, the aides went to work. One, Asim Brown, a young-looking 18 year-old, ordered a Budweiser beer from a waitress the second time she approached the table where he and 19 year- old Belvin Sanchez were sitting. (Sanchez declined.) The waitress was new and, against normal procedures, was pressed into service before she was completely trained. She did not ask Brown's age or ask to see proof of age. She left, placed Brown's order at a bar, and later returned to the bar to get the beer to serve at their table. Brown paid for the drink. The transaction was observed by Special Agent Powell, who was seated nearby. Sanchez later went to the "front bar" where he ordered a wine cooler while being observed by Special Agent Powell. He put the money on the bar counter while waiting for his drink. The bartender served him and took the money. Brown went to another bar where he ordered another Budweiser beer, this time from a female bartender. She served him, and he paid for the beer. 19-year old Ricky Salgado, who was teamed with Special Agent Hamilton and aide Steve Towe, also ordered a wine cooler at the front bar. He was served and paid for his drink. Special Agent Hamilton observed this transaction. Apparently about this time, the bartender recognized Special Agent Hamilton and spread the word for the staff to be extra careful to be in compliance with the Beverage Law. The next time aide Sanchez tried to buy a wine cooler at the front bar, the bartender escorted him to a manager and had him evicted. When aide Towe tried to buy a drink, he was evicted, too. The female bartender who had sold beer to Brown later evicted both of the other aides, who were 17 year-old females, as well as two other minors, for trying to buy alcoholic beverages. The evictions ended the investigation. Later, the special agents returned to arrest those accused of selling to minors and to serve a Notice to Show Cause on the Respondent. The Respondent attacked the credibility of the Department's special agents and aides, essentially accusing them of fabricating the evidence, primarily on the basis that: (1) the Mako's Bay Club staff knew Special Agent Hamilton was on the premises and was being especially cautious; and (2) Brown could not have been served Budweiser. As to the first point, the evidence was not clear when Special Agent Hamilton was spotted and when all the staff became advised of his presences. As to the second point, the Respondent contends that the waitress from whom Brown and Powell say he purchased the Budweiser beer remembers that she did not serve any Budweiser that night. A bartender testified that she was assigned to his bar and was required by the bar's procedures to place her orders through him. He had $1 Corona specials at his bar, and he contends that it would have been rare for someone to order a Budweiser at his bar, rare enough for him and the waitress to remember it. He also claims to have checked his drink orders on the night in question and to have found no order for Budweiser beer. 2/ But the evidence is clear that the waitress had not completed her training and was working without supervision for the first time. She may not have followed all of the Mako's Bay Club's usual procedures. In addition, the evidence revealed that she was very upset at having been accused of selling to a minor because she was about to join the military and did not want a criminal record to come out of the incident. She had a motive to attempt to defend herself, perhaps by telling untruths about what happened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1992.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for maintaining a licensed premises where illegal drugs are sold and solicitations for prostitution take place. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Carol Houston, Michael Collins, Chester L. Copeland, Vincent Rodriguez and John T. Allen. Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence six exhibits. Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Mr. Samuel Williams testified on behalf of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds and at all times material to this action held beverage license No. 39-684, Series 4-COP. The licensed premises under that license is located at 2801 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Samuel Williams is president of the Respondent, Skylight Corporation, and owns 60 percent of the stock of that corporation. On the evening of July 27, 1983, Beverage Officer Carol Houston went to the licensed premises, The Blue Room Lounge, to conduct an undercover investigation. Upon entering the lounge Officer Houston took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. After the shift change, Officer Houston talked to Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty. Officer Houston told Ms. Brock she liked to get high and asked if there was anyone in the bar from whom she could buy "reefer". Reefer is a street or slang term for marijuana or cannabis. Brenda Brock told Officer Houston that the person who usually sells reefer wasn't in the lounge at that time. Ms. Brock also related that she was high herself and had smoked a joint before coming on duty. When Officer Houston had entered the bar, Officer Michael Collins of the Tampa Police Department was already present in the lounge. Officer Collins, also working undercover, asked Brenda Brock where he would purchase some marijuana. When he asked Ms. Brock this question, she pointed out a black male named Chunky and said that he sold marijuana. Officer Collins then asked Brenda Brock to get Chunky for him and she did. The young male named Chunky approached Officer Collins and said he didn't have any marijuana but would have some later. At some time later in the evening, a young black male named Ace entered the lounge and Brenda Brock pointed to him and said to Officer Collins "that's him." Ace walked over to Officer Collins and asked if he was the guy looking for some marijuana. Officer Collins told him that he was but that he had promised to buy from someone else. Ace then asked Brenda Brock to verify to Officer Collins that he had been sent by Chunky and Brenda Brock said that he had in fact been sent by Chunky. As Ace had walked up to Officer Collins, he had three plastic bags of marijuana (cannabis) in his hands. He sold one of these bags to Officer Collins. Ace then sold a second bag of marijuana to a woman named Celeste who was sitting next to Officer Collins. Celeste was the bartender who had been relieved by Brenda Brock. Celeste purchased a $5 bag of marijuana from Ace and the exchange took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins. After making the sales to Officer Collins and to Celeste, Ace approached Beverage Officer Houston who was still seated at the bar in a different area than Officer Collins and Celeste. He asked Officer Houston if she wanted to purchase some marijuana. She said yes and further stated that she wanted a $5 bag. He handed her a plastic bag containing marijuana and Officer Houston laid it on the bar in the open. Brenda Brock walked over and told her to put the bag up. Officer Houston then placed the bag of marijuana in her purse. Officer Houston then asked Brenda Brock if she had any papers she could use to roll a "joint". A joint is a slang term or street term referring to a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock said she did not have any papers. The purchase by Officer Houston of the marijuana took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins from a different area of the bar. Later in the evening of July 27, 1983 two white females came into the lounge. Brenda Brock pointed to them and said those two ugly bitches called themselves prostitutes. At the time that the purchases of marijuana were made by Officer Collins, Celeste and Officer Houston, Brenda Brock was on duty as bartender and made no effort to stop the transactions. Mr. Samuel Williams had been in the lounge earlier in the evening, but was not present in the lounge when the marijuana transactions took place. On July 28, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises approximately 7:00 p.m. When she arrived Samuel Williams was present in the lounge. Mr. Williams was talking with two men seated at the bar and was overheard by Officer Houston to say that before he would have those two prostitutes on the phone all night, he would have it taken out. Brenda Brock was the bartender on duty that evening and Officer Houston asked her if Ace was around. Ms. Brock replied that no one was around who had any reefer. Officer Houston left the lounge approximately 8:30 p.m. and returned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Upon entering, she ordered a drink from Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock if Ace had been back in because she wanted to get some reefer now. Ms. Brock replied that he was in the lounge and that she would get him for her. Shortly thereafter, Ace came over and asked Officer Houston what she wanted. She told him she wanted some reefer. Ace then walked away and shortly returned with a plastic bag containing marijuana. Officer Houston handed Ace a $20 bill and because Ace indicated he had no change, Officer Houston handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her two $5 bills and one $10 bill as change. Officer Houston then handed a $5 bill to Ace as payment for the bag of marijuana. Also on the evening of July 28, 1983, while Officer Houston was seated at the bar, Brenda Brock told her a gentleman wanted to speak to her. The gentleman was Officer Collins, also working undercover. Officer Houston walked over and spoke to him briefly and the two of them returned to where Officer Houston had been seated in front of the cash register. There they discussed the price of a "date". A date is a common palance or street term for a sexual encounter for money or prostitution. A "date" is also referred to as a "trick". After agreeing upon a price, Officer Houston handed her purse and drink to Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock to hold them while she went outside to do a trick. Brenda accepted the purse and drink and Officer Houston left the bar with Officer Collins. Approximately 20 minutes later, Officer Houston returned and Brenda Brock gave her back her purse and her drink. At no time did Brenda Brock object to or inquire about Officer Houston's activities. On July 30, 1983, Beverage Officer Houston returned to The Blue Room Lounge at approximately 5:30 p.m. She entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink from Brenda Brock who was on duty as bartender. While she was seated at the bar a young black female came up and asked her if she wanted to buy some reefer. Officer Houston had seen this young woman in the bar previously. She told her she did not want to buy any marijuana and after the young woman left she asked Brenda Brock who the young woman was. Brenda Brock said she was Ace's sister and in response to Officer Houston's questions, indicated that it was alright to buy reefer from her. Later that evening Ace came in and asked Officer Houston if she wanted to buy some marijuana. She told him that she had met his sister and Ace then called the young black female over and introduced her to Officer Houston as his sister. Officer Houston told Ace that she wanted to buy a $5 bag of marijuana. Ace then went over to his sister and brought back a clear plastic bag of marijuana. Officer Houston handed him a $20 bill and he indicated he did not have change. She then obtained change for the $20 bill from Brenda Brock and handed $5 of the change to Ace. Brenda Brock was standing right in front of her at the bar when she handed Ace the $5. In the early morning hours of July 30, 1983, just after midnight, Beverage Officer Hamilton entered the The Blue Room Lounge. He came over and talked with Officer Houston about a "date". While they haggled over a price Brenda Brock was seated directly across the bar from Beverage Officer Houston. After agreeing upon a price for the date, Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and asked her to hold it while she did this trick. Brenda Brock took the purse and agreed to hold it. Beverage Officer Houston then left the lounge with Officer Hamilton. A few minutes later Beverage Officer Houston returned to the bar and Brenda Brock gave her her purse and put the drink which she had been drinking back on the bar. On August 1, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:30 p.m. She took the same seat near the cash register where she had sat on the previous evenings. Ace was present in the lounge. Officer Houston asked Brenda Brock to ask Ace to bring her a dime bag of marijuana. (A dime bag is a $10 bag. Brenda Brock went over to Ace and Ace then approached Officer Houston and asked her how much she wanted. At that time Officer Houston asked him if he could sell her some cocaine. He said he didn't have any but would have some later. Officer Houston then purchased two bags of marijuana from Ace for which she paid him $10. She handed him a $20 bill and he gave her $10 in change and when this exchange took place, Brenda Brock was in the area nearby on the other side of the bar. Officer Collins also went to the licensed premises on August 1, 1983 at approximately 10:55 p.m. After entering the lounge he told the barmaid, Brenda Brock, that he wanted to buy some good marijuana. She signaled to Ace and Ace came over to her. She whispered to Ace. Ace had walked up with a bag of marijuana already in his hand and after speaking with Brenda Brock he walked over and sold the bag of marijuana to Officer Collins for $5. Brenda Brock never objected to discussions regarding drugs or refused to get involved. There were no signs in the bar saying "No Drugs, No Loitering, No Prostitution", or signs with rules of management. On the evening of August 1, 1983, Officer Chester L. Copeland of the Tampa Police Department was also in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While standing at the bar Officer Copeland talked with Brenda Brock and asked her if Carol Houston was "dating". Brenda Brock said she didn't know. Ms. Brock then walked over and whispered something to Carol Houston and then returned to where Officer Copeland was standing and informed him that Carol was "dating". Officer Copeland then went over to Officer Houston and conversed with her about the price of a date. Brenda Brock was standing nearby during this conversation and made no objection to the discussion. After agreeing on a price Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and left the lounge with Officer Copeland. Officer Collins also present in the lounge, observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the lounge together. Prior to this occasion Officer Collins had asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston dated. Ms. Brock had indicated she didn't know and he had told her to go ask. She did go ask Officer Houston and came back and informed Officer Collins that she did date. Officer Collins then asked Ms. Brock the price of a date and she said she didn't know. Officer Collins asked her to go ask. Ms. Brock walked over and spoke with Officer Houston and came back and said the price was $50. On this particular evening of August 1, 1983, after he observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the bar, Officer Collins asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston was coming back. Ms. Brock said she didn't know. Officer Collins then asked her if Carol (Officer Houston) was out on a date and Brenda Brock replied that she thought so. On each of the occasions that Officer Collins discussed prostitution with Brenda Brock he instituted the conversation, but Ms. Brock freely discussed it and made no objection to the discussions. Shortly after she had left with Officer Copeland, Carol Houston returned to the licensed premises. Officer Collins then approached her and talked about a "date". After a short discussion he and Officer Houston left the bar together. On August 3, 1983, Officer Houston again returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar directly in front of where Brenda Brock was working as bartender. Seated near her at the bar was a latin male who kept asking her to come over. After she had been there a short time, Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male wanted to know how much she charged for a date. Officer Houston did not respond and Brenda Brock shouted to the latin male $100. A short time later Brenda Brock came back over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male said he had some cocaine. Officer Houston then told the latin male in a loud voice that he better also have lots of money. That same evening Brenda Brock also told Officer Houston that another male, Officer Collins, wanted a date and had some cocaine. On the evening of August 3, 1983, Officer Copeland also entered the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Copeland met the young man named Ace. Ace came over and asked if he wanted to buy a $5 bag of reefer. He indicated that he did and gave Ace $5, and Ace handed him a plastic baggie of marijuana. On August 9, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar, ordered a drink, and asked Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty, if Ace was around. Brenda Brock indicated that he was over at the Pac-Man machine but he had left the lounge. Later Ace came in and Brenda Brock said "there he is" to Officer Houston. Ace came over to Officer Houston and said he had some cocaine and asked if she still wanted to buy some. She asked now how much it would cost. Ace indicated he had "nickel" ($5) pieces. Ace stated that it was back at his room and he left and then returned with a small foil pack. Officer Houston gave Ace $5 and he handed her the small foil pack. The small foil pack contained cocaine, a controlled substance under Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. That same evening Officer Houston observed two black males rolling some type of cigarette. She observed a plastic bag containing material similar to marijuana. She observed Brenda Brock obtain some rolling papers from behind the bar and hand them to the two males. On August 10, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:00 p.m. Ace was not in the lounge when she arrived, but approximately 10:15 p.m. Ace entered the lounge and came over and asked if she wanted to buy some "coke". "Coke" is a slang or street term for cocaine. She said she would like to buy some and he said he would have it later. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Ace came over to Officer Houston and stated that he had coke. Officer Houston told him that she wanted two hits and she then bought two foil packs from Ace. Officer Houston gave Ace a $20 bill but he had no change. She then handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her change. She paid $10 for the two foil packs which contained cocaine. That same evening a black male was seated at the bar smoking a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock who was the bartender on duty stated "Do I smell dope?" She then looked at the male smoking the marijuana cigarette, but made no effort to stop him. On August 11, 1983, Officer Houston was again on the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Houston observed a white female smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the white female had just gotten some reefer and wanted to know if she wanted some. Officer Houston told her that she did not. Mr. Samuel Williams the president of the Respondent corporation was the manager and owner of the licensed premises. During the time of the charges in this case, Mr. Williams would open the bar in the mornings and remain at the bar all day until the shift change at approximately 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. He was not present in the bar when the various transactions took place and was generally not present in the bar in the evening. A Mr. Raifield had been hired by him to manage the bar at night. However, Mr. Raifield had been terminated shortly before the transactions which are the subject of this case. Brenda Brock had become a full-time bartender on July 26, 1983. Prior to that time she had worked part-time and Mr. Williams had no indication that she used drugs or allowed other people to use drugs or solicit for prostitution on the licensed premises. At no time was Mr. Williams aware that Brenda Brock was permitting drug transactions and solicitations for prostitution to take place in the licensed premises. There is a substantial prostitution problem in the Nebraska Avenue area where the licensed premises is located. Mr. Williams has been active in civic attempts to eliminate the prostitution from this area. Within a year of the charges which are the subject of this case, Mr. Williams' life was threatened by a pimp operating along Nebraska Avenue and the tires and convertible top of his car were slashed. One of the reasons that Mr. Williams was not in the lounge in the evening was because he had been advised by the police that it would be safer for him to not be in the lounge in the evenings. This occurred following the threat on his life. Mr. Williams had no policy of random visits or inspections to the lounge in the evenings. There have been no prior complaints or charges brought against the Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of 1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of sixty (60) days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Samuel Williams 3513 Rivergrove Drive Tampa, Florida Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
