The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 562.02, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by unlawfully possessing certain alcoholic beverages on its licensed premises which were not authorized to be sold under its license; (2) whether Respondent violated Subsection 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, by purchasing or acquiring alcoholic beverages for the purpose of resale from persons not licensed as distributors; and (3) if so, what penalty or administrative fine should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and was at all times relevant hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage License No. 62-10299, Series 2-COP, which permits the sale of beer and wine, but no other alcoholic beverages, for consumption on the premises. Petitioner seeks to impose sanctions on the license of Respondent. Mr. Pagini owned and operated Latin American Café, a restaurant located at 3780 Tampa Road, Oldsmar, Florida. The restaurant serves Latin American and South American foods and desserts, some of which contain alcoholic beverages in preparation of said food. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the menu for Latin American Café stated that only one type of liquor was used for cooking. Respondent was placed on the Division's "No Sale" list on August 21, 2007, for failure to renew its license. As a result of being on the "No Sale" list, distributors were prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages to Respondent. Nevertheless, as discussed below, a receipt dated August 23, 2007, shows that a distributor sold alcoholic beverages to Respondent. Due to Respondent's being placed on the "No Sale" list, Casey Simon, a special agent with the Division, conducted an inspection of Latin American Café on November 21, 2007. During the inspection, Agent Casey discovered beer and liquor on the premises. The beer was located in a cooler behind the bar at the front of the premises, and the liquor was located in the manager's office and in the kitchen cupboards. The liquor discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, consisted of the following: (a) one, one-quart bottle of Mr. Boston Crème De Cassis; (b) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Cinzano Rosso Vermouth; (c) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Chevas Regal Whiskey; (d) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Sambuca Di Amare; (e) one, 1.75-liter bottle of Heritage Triple Sec; (f) one, 250-millimeter bottle of Chasqui Licor De Café; (g) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Truffles Liquor; (h) one, one-liter bottle of Sambroso Licor De Café; and (i) one, .75-liter bottle of Heritage Rum. Respondent contends that seven of the nine kinds of suspect liquor found on the premises were used for cooking, mostly desserts, at the business. The remaining two liquors found on the premises, Chevas Regal Whiskey and Sambuca, were for Mr. Pagani's personal use. The Chevas Regal Whiskey was a present that had been given to Mr. Pagini, and at the time of the inspection, the whiskey was in a box in his office. The Sambuca Di Amare is a "digestive" liquor made in Italy and was for Mr. Pagini's personal use. Although most of the liquor was found on Respondent's premises during the inspection, Respondent's menu does not list any of the suspect liquors as an ingredient in any of the menu items. The beer discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, consisted of the following: (a) 41, 12-ounce bottles of Bud Light, with a born date of September 2007; (b) six, 12-ounce bottles of Budweiser; (c) 27, 12-ounce bottles of Miller Lite; (d) 12, 12-ounce bottles of Heineken; and (e) 19, 12-ounce bottles of Corona. The Bud Light's "born date" of September 2007, is the date in which the beer was manufactured. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that beer with a "born date" of September 2007, cannot be purchased prior to that month. During the November 21, 2007, investigation, the Division's agent requested invoices for the beer found on the premises. Respondent produced a receipt from Sam's Club dated November 16, 2007, which reflected the sale of various items to a "member," identified, presumably, by a membership number. Among the items purchased were other documents provided to Agent Simon which showed that Latin American Café was the member on the November receipt. Next to the name of each kind of beer was the number "24" which, presumably, indicated the number of bottles of beer that were purchased. Mr. Pagini testified that many of the items purchased from Sam's Club on November 16, 2007, including the Bud Light and the Heineken, were for personal use. At this proceeding, Respondent introduced into evidence copies of two receipts which reflect that it purchased alcoholic beverages from two authorized distributors, J.J. Taylor Distributors Florida, Inc. ("J.J. Taylor Distributors") and Great Bay Distributors, Inc. ("Great Bay Distributors"). The receipts were dated August 9, 2007, and August 23, 2007, respectively. The receipt from J.J. Taylor Distributors dated August 9, 2007, reflects that Respondent purchased the following alcoholic beverages: (a) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Becks beer; (b) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Braham beer; (c) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Heineken beer; (d) 24, 12-ounce bottles of "Lite" beer; and (e) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Presidente. The receipt from Great Bay Distributors dated August 23, 2007, reflected the purchase of the following alcoholic beverages: (a) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Budweiser beer; (b) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Corona beer; (c) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Modesto Especial; and (d) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Negro Modesto. Despite Respondent's providing receipts from distributors, no plausible explanation was provided to establish when and from whom the Bud Light, discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, was purchased. The receipts from the distributor were dated about one month prior to the Bud Light's born date of September 2007. The suspect Bud Light has a born date of September 2007, which is after the dates of the distributor receipts and after Respondent was placed on the "No Sale" list. No evidence was offered to establish where the suspect beer, Bud Light, was purchased or acquired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent, Latin American Café and Market, Inc., d/b/a Latin American Café, violated Section 562.02, Florida Statutes; (2) finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 562.14(3), Florida Statutes; (3) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 562.02, Florida Statutes; and requiring the fine to be paid within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2009.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1977, Armando Calo, through counsel, filed a Notice of Lien with DABT stating that he was a bona fide mortgagee on an alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, lic. no. 23-1901) held by the Intimo Lounge, Inc., 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, he enclosed a copy of his chattel mortgage and a check payable to DABT in the amount of $5.00. (P-1) By return letter dated February 4, 1977, C. L. Ivey, Jr., DABT's Licensing Supervisor, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Calo's Notice of Lien and stated that it would be made part of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license file. At that time, administrative license revocation proceedings were pending against Intimo Lounge, Inc. So Mr. Ivey sent a copy of his February 4, 1977 acknowledgment letter to DABT's Miami Office, and included this notation: P.S. John: You need to immediately notify Attorney Solomon's [Calo's attorney's] office if and when an order to revoke is issued. He will then go to court to seek a judicial transfer. (P-2) On March 22, 1977, Charles A. Nuzum, DABT's Director, executed an order revoking Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license. (R-1) Eight days later, on March 30, 1977, Armando Calo sued Intimo Lounge, Inc., seeking to foreclose his chattel mortgage on its alcoholic beverage license. By letter of the same date, counsel for Mr. Calo, citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, notified DABT of the filing of the foreclosure action; he also asserted that Mr. Calo had no knowledge of or participation in the causes for which the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license was revoked. Copies of subsequent pleadings filed in the action were sent to DABT's legal department. DABT thus knew the suit was filed and was aware of its continued progress. (Testimony of Barone; P-3, P-4, P-11) The Circuit Court of Dade County ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in Mr. Calo's favor. On August 17, 1979, pursuant to such judgment, the Clerk of the Court sold the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license, at public sale, to intervenor Rene Valdes, 1710 N.W. 7th Street, Suite 7201, Miami, Florida for $25,000. Notice of the sale was published in the Miami Review, a newspaper circulated in Dade County. On August 28, 1979, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Title pursuant to Chapter 45, Florida Statutes. This Certificate certified that Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, license no. 23-1901) had been sold to Rene Valdes on August 17, 1979, and that "no objections to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections." (Testimony of Valdes; P-5, P-6) Although DABT was aware of the protracted mortgage foreclosure litigation involving the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license --which it had earlier revoked -- it never protested or sought to block the foreclosure action. It was not a party to the action; neither did it attempt to become one. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) In September, 1979, a month after the judicial foreclosure sale, Nathaniel Barone, counsel for Intimo Lounge, Inc., wrote R. B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation, asking what steps were necessary to keep the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license viable. An internal memorandum suggests that DABT was, at first, unprepared to answer that question and preferred, instead, to delay answering until an application for the license was filed. But, on October 4, 1979, Harold F. X. Purnell, the Department's General Counsel replied on behalf of Secretary Burroughs: It is the Division's position that the . . . license has been and presently is revoked pursuant to the actions pre- viously taken by [DABT]. Further, that in the absence of an order of appropriate jurisdiction entered in a proceeding to which the Division is a party we are powerless to transfer such license. (Testimony of Barone; P-7, P-10) Meanwhile, Rene Valdes, notified DABT of his purchase of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license and asked that it be held in escrow while he found a suitable purchaser and location. When DABT refused, Mr. Valdes petitioned the court, which had rendered the foreclosure judgment, to require DABT to process and transfer the license. The court denied his petition, at least in part, because DABT was not a party to the proceeding. After the court hearing, Mr. Valdes, together with his attorney, Charles Kelly, and DABT's counsel, Mr. Purnell, met outside the chambers and discussed their next step. Mr. Kelly discussed seeking a mandamus ordering DABT to issue the license. Mr. Purnell suggested, instead, that Mr. Valdes find a location and purchaser for the license, then submit an application to DABT -- something which Mr. Valdes had not yet done. Although Mr. Purnell did not assure them that the application would be approved, both Mr. Valdes and Mr. Barone gained an impression that it would be. 2/ Mr. Valdes, following Mr. Purnell's suggestion, found a location and buyer, then applied for a transfer of the license. DABT's denial resulted in this proceeding. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) Under Section 561.65(1), Florida Statutes (1977), a lender licensed by the state holding a lien on an alcoholic beverage license had the right to enforcement of his lien against the license within 12 days after any order of revocation, provided it was revoked for causes which the lienholder had no knowledge and did not participate. If the lienholder purchased the license at foreclosure sale, he could operate under it or transfer it to a qualified person. Until August 17, 1980, it was DABT's long-standing practice and policy to make no distinction between licensed and unlicensed lenders (lien-holders). It allowed both licensed and unlicensed lienholders to file notice of liens against beverage licenses and honored the subsequent transfer of the license if the lien was enforced within 12 days of revocation. This practice was abruptly changed on the basis of an agency legal opinion. On August 17, 1980, one month before Gui-Dom filed its application, DABT's General Counsel rendered a legal opinion limiting Section 561.65 relief to lenders licensed by the state. After that date, until 1981, when the legislature removed the "licensed lender" language of Section 561.65, DABT applied Section 561.65 literally and only accepted liens filed by licensed lenders. (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13) But in October, 1980, DABT did not deny Gui-Dom's application for transfer of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license because Armando Calo, the lienholder, lacked a lender's license. Instead, the application was denied because the license had been earlier revoked. As later explained by Barry Schoenfeld, DABT's Chief of Licensing: 2 [DABT] felt at the time that . . . there really was no license, that the license had already been revoked, and that there was no license for the court to sell [to Valdes]. (P-13, p. 25). But Section 561.65 specifically permits liens, under specified conditions, to survive license revocation. When asked to explain DABT's position in light of Section 561.65, Mr. Schoenfeld replied, "I don't know that I can explain it." (P-13, p. 16) Neither could Mr. Schoenfeld adequately explain why, in cases similar to this, DABT has approved license transfers while, here, they have not. (P-13, p. 23) It was not until after the denial of Gui-Dom's application that DABT contended that Section 561.65, Florida Statutes (1977), provides no relief because Armando Calo was not a licensed lender. (P- 9, P-13). Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker, operates a business known as "Beverage License, Inc." He specializes in obtaining and transferring alcoholic beverage licenses for clients and has a working knowledge of the Beverage Law, including DABT rules and practice. When he purchased the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license at the judicial sale, he did not know that it had been revoked by DABT. He did, however, know that there was license revocation litigation between Intimo Lounge, Inc. and DABT. He also knew that DABT had issued an emergency order suspending Intimo Lounge, Inc.'s license; and he knew that there were circuit court foreclosure proceedings involving the license. Yet he failed to ascertain the status of the license -- either by checking the files of DABT or the circuit court. But even if he had discovered that the license had been revoked, under DABT's long-standing practice and interpretation of Section 561.65, it would have made no difference. The license would have "survived" revocation because Armando Calo had timely enforced his lien. And it could have been sold at a judicial sale and transferred to a new qualified purchaser. (Testimony of Valdes, Harris; P-13) DABT has provided no record foundation for its abrupt discontinuance of prior agency practice and policy in August, 1980, a policy which allowed both licensed and unlicensed lien holders to file and timely enforce liens against beverage licenses. This policy enabled a lien to survive license revocation; and the license, which had been revoked earlier could then be transferred by judicial sale. The only explanation given for the change in policy, a change which DABT now relies on as cause for denying Gui-Dom's application, is that the agency changed its legal interpretation of Section 561.65 (1977). (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Gui-Dom's application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-1901, series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983.
The Issue Should Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089 be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, operated as a sole proprietorship known as Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida. Respondent held a series SRX4COP Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089, issued by DABT, which authorized Respondent to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises in connection with the restaurant operation of Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge. Respondent's beverage license did not authorize Respondent to sell any form of alcoholic beverage for consumption off of the licensed premises. By letter dated February 10, 1997, the Fort Meade Police Department requested investigative assistance from DABT concerning an allegation that controlled substances were being sold at Respondent's licensed premises as well as another location unrelated to Respondent. As a result of the request for assistance from the Fort Meade Police Department, DABT instituted an investigation concerning the complaint. In addition to assigning the complaint to a Special Agent, Cleveland McKenzie, DABT requested assistance from the Polk County Sheriff's Department. At approximately 9:45 p.m. on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie, accompanied by Detective Bobby Neil, Polk County Sheriff's Office, entered Respondent's licensed premises, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity. While in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the person tending bar (bartender) for "a beer for the road." In response to Agent McKenzie's request, the bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag, with the beer inside, to McKenzie who then paid for the beer and left the licensed premises without attempting to conceal the beer on his person and without being stopped by any person providing services on the licensed premises. Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:00 p.m. Both Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil described the bartender as a stout, light-skinned, black male approximately 20 to 25 years of age. Neither Larry Fisher, manager of the licensed premises, nor Reginald Johnson, Respondent's adult son, fit this description. The person tending bar at the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was neither Larry Fisher nor Reginald Johnson, notwithstanding the testimony of Larry Fisher or Reginald Johnson to the contrary which I find lacks credibility. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil entered Respondent's licensed premises located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity Before leaving the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the bartender (the same individual tending bar while Agent McKenzie was in the licensed premises on April 18, 1997) for "a beer to go." The bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag to Agent McKenzie. The bartender refused the offer of payment for the beer from Agent McKenzie's indicating that the beer was "on him." Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:55 p.m. on April 26, 1997. Upon leaving the licensed premises, Agent McKenzie carried the unopened bottle of beer in the paper bag without any attempt to conceal the beer on his person. Likewise, upon leaving the licensed premises, Detective Neil carried a half-full opened bottle of beer which he had purchased earlier from the bartender without any attempt to conceal the bottle on his person. In order to leave the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil had to go pass two individuals who were providing services to Respondent's licensed premises. Neither of these individual, nor any other person providing services to Respondent's licensed premises on April 26, 1997, prevented Agent McKenzie or Detective Neil from leaving the licensed premises with the beer. There was no evidence presented By DABT to show that while Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, that the bartender sold or gave any other customer an alcoholic beverage packaged to go or that any other customer left the licensed premises with an alcoholic beverage. Respondent was not present in his licensed premises during the time that Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were there on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997. There is insufficient evidence to show that the bartender's action on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was the result of Respondent's negligence, intentional wrongdoing, lack of diligence, lack of training for the employees, or lack of notice to customers that any alcoholic beverage purchased had to be consumed on the licensed premises. After the visits to the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie concluded that there was no basis to the alleged complaint that controlled substances were being sold on the licensed premises. The designation "SRX" identifies a beverage license issued to business which is to be operated as restaurant. As a result of its investigation of Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, DABT, as is its normal practice, examined the Respondent's licensed premises for continuing requirements applicable to special licenses such as a "SRX" license. Respondent is an experienced business person with 15 years experience in operating licensee premises. Respondent knew at the time of obtaining the license at issue in May 1995 that he had an obligation to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent met the 51 percent requirement in each bi-monthly period. Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997, listed the total amount of revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages. However, this figure for alcoholic beverages was not supported by any daily records of sales. Respondent maintained no records as to the daily sales of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. Although Respondent presented guest checks for the daily sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, the total of these checks for each month in question did not support the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for each corresponding month. Based on the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement and other records furnished by Respondent for the months of January, February, March, and April 1997, the percentage of total gross revenue (sales of food, non-alcoholic beverages, and alcoholic beverages) derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997 was approximately 45 percent, 46 percent, 46 percent, and 44 percent, respectively.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License, Number SRX4COP 63-04089 DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0792 Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Kenneth Glover, Esquire 505 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
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 revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on charges that it operated its restaurant in violation of beverage rules.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent conducted business as Oscar's Restaurant and Lounge (the "licensed premises" or "premises") at 901 Southwest Eighth Street, Miami, Florida, under a special restaurant alcoholic beverage license, No. 23-2059-SRX (Series 4-COP-SRX), issued prior to April 18, 1972. I. At 2:30 p.m. on November 8, 1979, when beverage officer Louis J. Terminello inspected the licensed premises, the kitchen area was not in use. The kitchen lights were off, no kitchen employees were present, and no food was being prepared. Although alcoholic beverages were being served to approximately three patrons in the bar section of the premises, no food had been served. (Testimony of Terminello.) Officer Terminello then asked Oscar Sarmiento, the on-site representative of respondent, to produce business records reflecting the purchases and sales of alcoholic beverages, food, and nonalcoholic beverages. Mr. Sarmiento replied that the requested records were not on the premises, that they were at the office of respondent's accountant, Mark Thaw. (Testimony of Terminello.) Respondent contends, without corroboration, that DABT, through Officer Terminello, had given oral permission to keep these business records off premises, at its accountant's office. Officer Terminello denied having given such permission. Taking into account the interest and bias of the witnesses, Officer Terminello's denial is accepted as the more credible and is persuasive. The fact that, before or during the time in question, DABT agents inspected respondent's records at its accountant's office does not, by itself, establish that respondent had permission from DABT to keep business records offsite. (Testimony of Terminello, Sarmiento.) Before leaving the premises that day, Officer Terminello explained to Mr. Sarmiento the requirements of special restaurant alcoholic beverage licenses and provided a written notice of deficiencies. (Testimony of Terminello.) At 2:30 PM. on December 5, 1979, Officer Terminello returned to the licensed premises to conduct a follow up inspection. The kitchen area was, again, not in use. A small amount of food was found in the refrigerator. The stove was cold. No food was being prepared or served. Silverware was insufficient to accommodate 200 customers. Several patrons in the bar area were being served alcoholic beverages by Guano Salas, the employee in charge of the premises. (Testimony of Terminello.) At 2:00 P.M.. on the next day, December 6, 1979, Officer Terminello returned to the premises and found a similar situation: the kitchen was not in use, no food was being prepared or served, and patrons were being served alcoholic beverages in the bar area. He then arranged to have another beverage officer, Leonard Del Monte, attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage and a meal. At 3:00 P.M.., Officer Del Monte entered, ordered an alcoholic beverage, and asked for "something to eat." Juana Salas, the employee in charge, told him that he could go "down the street," that there were plenty of restaurants in the area. He asked for a menu but was net given one. Although there were patrons drinking in the bar area, none were eating or being served meals. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) At 5:30 P.M.. on December 7, 1979, Officers Terminello and Del Monte returned to the premises. Officer Del Monte, in an undercover capacity, ordered and was served an alcoholic beverage. He requested a menu but Ms. Salas told him that no food was being served. Other Patrons were being served drinks but none were consuming meals. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) At 4:40 P.M.. on December 11, 1979, Officers Terminello and Del Monte again entered the premises. Patrons were at the bar drinking but no food was being prepared or served. When Officer Del Monte ordered a meal, he was told that food was not being served because the kitchen was being disinfected. He ordered and was served an alcoholic beverage. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) During each of the foregoing inspections of the licensed premises, Officers Terminello and Del Monte remained on the premises for approximately 20- 30 minutes. (Testimony of Del Monte, Terminello.) Oscar Sarmiento, former owner of the licensed premises, testified that, to his knowledge (although he was not always on the premises) meals could almost always be purchased on the premises, that lunch could normally be purchased in the early and mid-afternoons. (Testimony of Sarmiento.) II. Prior to February 28, 1979, Oscar Sarmiento was the owner and president of respondent. On February 28, 1979, Elma Sarmiento, his wife, became sole owner and was elected president, treasurer, and secretary of respondent corporation. (Testimony of Sarmiento; R-3, R-4.) On February 28, 1979, Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker acting on behalf of respondent, filed with DABT forms indicating that Elma Sarmiento owned all stock of the respondent corporation and that she was elected president, treasurer, and secretary at the corporate director's meeting held on February 28, 1979. 3/ (In anticipation of the change in ownership, Mrs. Sarmiento had been fingerprinted by DABT on November 13, 1978.)(Testimony of Valdes; R-2, R-3, R-4.) III. By final order dated December 12, 1979, that portion of Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, which requires special restaurant licensees to "discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages whenever the service of full course meals is discontinued" was declared an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by a Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer. Gainesville Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, DOAH Case No. 79-1851R, affirmed, 402 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). DABT concedes that this portion of Rule 7A-3.15 is ineffective 4/ and any evidence concerning violation of it "cannot be used as an indication that the licensee was operating in a manner not consistent with its alcoholic beverage license." (Challenge to the validity of Rule 7A-3.15 filed by DABT on April 27, 1982.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DABT impose a civil penalty of $1,000 against respondent for the rule and statutory violations as described above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-255, Series 12, RT, which licensed premises is located at Seminole Greyhound Park, a greyhound racing facility in Casselberry, Florida. The officers of this corporation who are accused of filing false personal questionnaires with Petitioner are Paul Dervaes, Jack Demetree, William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick. Paul Dervaes and William Demetree also filed a certificate of incumbency and stock ownership which is also alleged to have been false. The principal issue concerns the involvement of John Fountain in the affairs of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. Fountain is a convicted felon who was adjudicated guilty of bookmaking in the Jacksonville Federal District Court in October, 1972. The principal parties to this matter, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick knew from the outset that John Fountain was a convicted felon ineligible for licensing in this state under either the pari- mutuel or beverage laws. John Fountain conceived the idea of acquiring Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., a money-losing harness racing facility, and obtaining necessary legislation to convert the facility to greyhound racing. Fountain first brought this idea to his long-term friends and business associates, Jack and William Demetree, in the mid to late 1970's. Fountain also initiated the involvement of another longtime friend, Paul Dervaes, as President of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. When the enterprise was short of cash in late 1978 and early 1979, Fountain made successive loans of $152,000 and $169,499.82 to the corporation through Paul Dervaes for use in converting and operating Seminole Park. When the necessary legislation was passed to convert to a greyhound facility, John Fountain, for several months, worked long hours without any salary as head of the physical conversion project for the Demetrees. Fountain originated the Super 8 betting feature at Seminole Park, one of the cornerstones of the track's promotion and publicity endeavors. Fountain also, after the conversion was complete and the facility was opened for business, authorized complimentary meals and drinks at the licensed premises at Seminole Park and authorized petty cash disbursements for a wedding present for a newspaper reporter and the distribution of gasoline without charge from Seminole Greyhound Park's fuel tanks. On March 31, 1980, Paul Dervaes, who at the time held 53 percent of the outstanding stock of Seminole Greyhound Park, sent a memo to William Demetree and sought to extricate himself from a managerial position at the track on the basis that the Demetrees appeared not to be satisfied with his managerial abilities. In this memo, Dervaes identified himself as a minority stockholder of the enterprise, despite his then ownership of a majority of 53 percent of the shares of stock. Respondent has sought to explain such incongruity by candidly admitting that Dervaes was fronting for John Fountain as to 43 shares or 43 percent of the stock in Seminole Park. As this time, Ernest Drosdick, who had for years handled all legal affairs for Seminole Park as well as for William Demetree, advised Dervaes and Jack and William Demetree that the loans to Seminole from John Fountain through Paul Dervaes had to be repaid so that the involvement of Fountain could be terminated. Drosdick's advice was predicated on Fountain's felony conviction and he noted that Fountain's continued involvement in such manner would be violative of the pari-mutuel and beverage licensing laws. The corporation thereupon obtained $321,499.82 in early April of 1980, such sum being the total of the principal but not interest due on the $152,000 and $169.499.82 loans made from John Fountain to Seminole Park through Paul Dervaes. Drosdick's advice was not consistently applied, however, with regard to recalling the loans from John Fountain. The $321,499.82 was paid by check to Paul Dervaes on April 1, 1980, which Dervaes deposited in his bank account. William Demetree then asked Dervaes if $160,000 of the funds just paid him could be borrowed back from Fountain despite Drosdick's advice against such loans. The re-loan was agreeable with Fountain and on April 9, 1980, Dervaes wrote a check in the amount of $160,000 back to Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, and on April 21, repaid the remaining $161,499.82 to Fountain. The $160,000 loan was reflected in an April 9, 1980, note signed by William Demetree as Chairman of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. It was also acknowledged by William Demetree that he knew the money was coming from John Fountain. It is this loan, which was repaid as to principal only in November of 1980, that was not reflected on the personal questionnaires of each of the principal parties. At the time the April 9, 1980, $160,000 loan was made by Fountain to Seminole Park through Dervaes, all of the principal parties, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick, knew that John Fountain was a convicted felon and knew that his involvement through loans would be impermissible under pari-mutuel and beverage licensing statutes. It was established that the $160,000 loan was not listed on the personal questionnaires filled out in July of 1980, by each of the aforementioned individuals despite the clearly expressed directive of such questionnaire forms, which states: List the total amount and sources of money you personally are investing in the proposed operation. Also, list any persons, corporations, partnerships, banks, and mortgage companies who have or will invest or lend money in the proposed operation. Immediately prior to the applicant's signature line on the personal questionnaire form is the following statement: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statute 837.06 that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made. Immediately under the signature line is a boxed-in passage entitled "WARNING" with the word "warning" capitalized and underlined and the following: Read carefully, this instrument is a sworn document. False answers could result in criminal prosecution, subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The principal parties seek to excuse their failure to include the Fountain loan on their personal questionnaires by claiming that Drosdick, who is now deceased, was unaware of the $160,000 loan, that he filled out the questionnaires for them and that they merely signed them under oath and attested to their veracity without reading them. This testimony is not credible in view of the material, self-serving omission made on these questionnaires. Therefore, Respondent's agents, who are experienced businessmen, must be held responsible for their sworn statements. The principals have also sought to excuse their conduct on the basis that any matters which transpired between John Fountain and Paul Dervaes in connection with the loan were personal matters between Dervaes and Fountain and thus immaterial to the corporation. However, this theory avoids recognizing that personal questionnaires were submitted by four individuals and not by the corporate entity. It was established that each of the four individuals had knowledge of the $160,000 loan in question and thus were required to list such loan on their personal questionnaires. It was Fountain who conceived the idea of conversion, who supplied the capital necessary to effectuate the conversion, who without salary headed the physical conversion of the facility and who after the opening of the track authorized the expenditure of funds and the giving of certain gratuities at the track. Fountain was clearly and intimately involved with the overall success of the track. Indeed, the original loans in the amount of $152,000 and $169,499.82 from Fountain called for the payment of 10 percent interest and the $160,000 loan called for the payment of 15 percent interest, none of which has ever been paid. Such interest, as of September 30, 1982, had accrued in the amount of $15;173. Dervaes acknowledged that such interest was but a "paper transaction" in that the principal parties and Fountain all knew and agreed that Fountain would not be paid until such time as the track paid Dervaes the interest. Consequently, Fountain has held with the full knowledge of all the principal parties, an impermissible pecuniary interest in the licensed facility which continues to the present time. The Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership submitted as part of the beverage license application process was likewise incorrect. It reflected Jack and William Demetree as 50 percent each owners of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. when, in fact, the separate corporate entity Seminole Greyhound Park, was the sole stockholder of this corporation. Such document was signed by William Demetree and certified as being true and correct by Paul Dervaes under oath. William Demetree and Paul Dervaes attempt to place the blame on Drosdick for improperly preparing the document. However, they signed this document and cannot avoid responsibility for their sworn statements.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 69-255. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 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 23rd day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven A. Werber, Esquire 2000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 28th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondents for selling, serving, or giving an alcoholic beverage, on the licensed premises, to a person under the age of 21 in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco ("Division") is empowered to revoke or suspend the alcoholic beverage license of any person holding a license under the Beverage Law for certain classes of violations enumerated in Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes. In addition, or alternatively, the Division may impose a civil penalty against a licensee for those violations. See Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The Division issued an alcoholic beverage license to Now, Inc. and Azam, Mohammed Monsurul d/b/a Red Barn, license no. 7402731, series 2APS, which was in effect at all times relevant to this inquiry. That license is subject to the disciplinary opportunities created in Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The licensed premises are located at 805 West New York Avenue, Deland, Florida. Mr. Mohammed Monsurul Azam owns a one- third interest in Now, Inc. His two brothers own the remaining interest in one-third shares. Mr. Gregory Campbell was born on October 1, 1979. On May 22, 1998, Mr. Campbell purchased a keg of beer from Mr. Azam at the licensed premises in Deland, Florida. In the transaction Mr. Campbell paid money directly to Mr. Azam for the purchase of the beer. Neither Mr. Azam nor any other person working for Now, Inc. asked Mr. Campbell to produce identification to establish Mr. Campbell's age. Mr. Campbell had purchased alcoholic beverages from the Red Barn on three or more occasions before this date and had not been asked for identification on the other occasions. Mr. Azam was among the persons from whom Mr. Campbell purchased beer at the Red Barn on prior occasions. When Mr. Campbell purchased the beer from Mr. Azam, a receipt for the purchase was prepared by Mr. Azam. Mr. Azam wrote Mr. Campbell's name and telephone number down in association with the purchase of the beer on May 22, 1998. When Mr. Campbell purchased the beer on May 22, 1998, he was accompanied by Mr. Brian Kucera and Clifton Wilson. Neither of those individuals was directly involved in the purchase of the beer to the extent of producing identification in support of the purchase or paying money to Mr. Azam or another employee(s) of Now, Inc. The keg of beer that was purchased from Mr. Azam on May 22, 1998, was placed in an automobile that Messrs. Campbell, Kucera, and Wilson were riding in. Those three persons then drove away from the licensed premises with the beer. The beer in the keg was not consumed. At the insistence of Mrs. Glenda Campbell, Gregory Campbell's mother, the beer was returned to the licensed premises. At that time a deposit was returned for the keg and keg tap, but not for the contents of the keg. Mr. Campbell had paid for the contents, and for the deposit on the keg and keg tap when the beer was purchased on May 22, 1998.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Mohammed Monsurul Azam sold Gregory Campbell, who was under the age of 21, an alcoholic beverage, to wit beer, contrary to Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (3) and 562.11, Florida Statutes, and imposing a suspension of seven days and a civil penalty of $1000 against beverage license no. 7402731, series 2APS. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Craig T. James, Esquire Post Office Box 2087 Deland, Florida 32721-2087 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Mehreen Enterprises, Inc., held license number 23-21339, Series 2APS, authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of a business known as Super Stop Food Store #2, located at 9260 Hammocks Boulevard, Miami, Dade County, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). Syed Abdul Qadir (Qadir) was, and is, a shareholder of the Respondent corporation, and the manager of the licenses premises.1 On March 1, 1997, at or about 8:00 p.m., Richard Stangl (Richard), date of birth December 7, 1976, and 20 years of age at the time, entered the licensed premises, retrieved a 32 ounce bottle of Red Dog beer from a vertical cooler, and proceeded to the counter where he paid Qadir for the beer and left the premises. At the time, Qadir did not request to see any identification as proof of legal age, nor did he ask Richard his age. As Richard drove away from the store he was intercepted by the police, who were engaged in an investigation of the premises. Confirming Richard's age and the possession of an alcoholic beverage,2 Richard was returned to the licensed premises where he and Qadir were placed under arrest.3 Respondent does not dispute that the foregoing events occurred. Rather, it contends that it took reasonable precautions to avoid serving an underaged person and should not, therefore, be penalized for the subject sale. Given the proof, Respondent's contention has merit. While Richard was less than 21 years of age at the time, the proof demonstrated that his appearance was such that an ordinary prudent person would believe he was of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages.4 The proof further demonstrates that Richard frequented the licensed premises on a regular basis over a three month period, and that he routinely purchased (approximately 30 times) alcoholic beverages during that period. Initially Qadir inquired as to his age, which Richard stated to be 21, and requested identification, which Richard presented in the form of a driver's license consistent with that age. Qadir continued to request identification for a time but, as Richard appeared regularly at the store, and began to complain, he ceased requesting identification. Given the repeated assurances by word and identification card that Qadir had received regarding Richard's apparent age, Qadir's failure to continue to request identification was not unreasonable.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1997.
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
