Findings Of Fact Petitioner originally held alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP, as an individual. He transferred this license to M & S, Inc., a Florida corporation, about one year ago. Petitioner is a 50 percent shareholder in this corporation. Jimmy G. Maddox holds the other 50 percent stock interest. Petitioner and Maddox are currently engaged in civil litigation involving the corporate licensee. Respondent referred to this civil suit in its notice disapproving the transfer application, citing the pending litigation as a basis for disapproval. Petitioner has not purchased the license from the corporation or entered into any agreement in contemplation of license transfer. Rather, he believes he is entitled to the return of the license because he received no consideration for the prior transfer from either the corporation or Maddox. Alternatively, Petitioner asks that the prior transfer to the corporation be set aside due to this lack of consideration.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 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 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Fischette, Esquire Suite 1916 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert T. Sussman, Esquire 3030 Independent Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.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 The issues for disposition are whether Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to an underage person in violation of section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Petitioner’s Administrative Action dated February 20, 1996, and if so, what penalty or discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of alcoholic beverage license no. 69-01472, Series 2APS, for a licensed premises doing business as Superette #3, located at 199 North Country Club Road, Lake Mary, Seminole County, Florida. On February 8, 1996 and at all relevant times, Salim Dhanani was the sole corporate officer and sole shareholder of Superette #3, Inc., the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The “City/County Investigative Bureau” (CCIB) is a task force of officers from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department and surrounding cities assigned to investigate crimes relating to drugs, alcohol and vice, including the sale of alcohol to minors. CCIB acts on complaints and works with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT). Darrell Brewer, born March 18, 1976, was a police explorer who was asked to help the CCIB investigate sales of alcohol to underage persons. On February 8, 1996, he was 19 years old and was working with Officers Johnson and Hartner. On February 8, 1996, in the evening around 8:00 p.m., Brewer and a CCIB agent entered the licensed premises, Superette #3. Brewer wore jeans and a tee-shirt and carried cash and a valid ID, which he was instructed to present if requested. Brewer picked out a 6-pack of Miller Genuine Draft beer and took it to the counter, where he purchased it without being asked for identification or any question regarding his age. Brewer turned over the beer to Officer Johnson, who returned to the store and arrested the clerk who had made the sale, Salim Dhanani. In May 1996, Dhanani went to court and pled no contest to the criminal charge of sale of alcohol to an underage person. He paid a fine. In his eleven years in the United States, this is the only violation by Dhanani. He worked in several places before taking over Superette #3 in November 1993, and he never had problems with DABT. After the Brewer incident, Dhanani hired a private consultant to train his wife and him and their one employee. They learned to “ID” everyone, including regular customers; they posted signs and notices informing customers of their “responsible vendor policy” and their intent to prosecute minors attempting to purchase alcohol. Dhanani admits that he sold beer to Brewer without asking for identification and without questioning his age. Brewer is a large, mature youth who, at the time of hearing, looked to be in his mid-20’s. To Dhanani, at the time of sale, Brewer appeared to be “28 or so”. Under the responsible vendor program any customer who appears to be under the age of 30 must be required to present proper identification. Through Capt. Ewing, DABT presented unrebutted evidence that the premises in Lake Mary has been vacated by the licensee, Superette #3, Inc., and a new license was issued to the landlord of the premises. Cancellation of the Superette #3 license is in abeyance pending this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcohol Beverages and Tobacco enter its final order finding that Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Action, assessing a fine of $1000.00, and suspending the license for 7 days, or until Respondent has found an approved new location. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Steven G. Horneffer, Esquire Suite 109 101 Sunnytown Road Casselberry, Florida 32707 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue 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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-751 permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages from her store at 1155 Jessie Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This business is a convenience store known as Agel Grocery. Respondent's husband has been co-owner of this business since the outset, and participates in its operation and management. When the Morenes applied for an alcoholic beverage license in June, 1980, they believed Frank Morene was ineligible and intentionally omitted his name from the application.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is That Respondent be found guilty of filing an incorrect application in violation of Subsection 561.17(1), Florida Statutes (1979). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 26-751 be suspended until Respondent files and secures approval of a correct application or demonstrates that any direct or indirect interest of Frank Morene in the licensed business has been removed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Saundra Morene c/o Agel Grocery 1155 Jessie Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1982, the Petitioner Dania Bank, filed a request with the Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to record a lien holder's interest against alcoholic beverage license 16-15 issued to the Respondent Chula, Inc., doing business as Chalet Ole and Chula Liquors. The lien was created on July 3, 1981, and filed with the Secretary of State on August 10, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying the Petitioner Dania Bank's request to record a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 16-15. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Whitney, Vice President The Dania Bank 255 East Dania Beach Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel 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.
Findings Of Fact 1718, Inc. held alcoholic beverage license number 58- 1581, Series 2-Cop; for the premises of the Fox Hunter, 1718 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. The license was issued on June 18, 1981. Although the testimony of Captain Jack B. Wallace that John and Fay Knight (Knights) were the owners of the real property located at 1718 South Orange, Orlando, Florida, went unrebutted, the record does not reveal the date when John and Fay Knight became the owners of the real property located at 1718 South Orange Street, Orlando, Florida. The Knights were absentee landlords and leased the premises to 1718, Inc. d/b/a/ Fox Hunter (Fox Hunter) through a real estate agency in Orlando, Florida. On June 3, 1985 Petitioners mailed a letter to the Knights informing them that the alcoholic beverage license of Fox Hunter had been suspended on an emergency basis due to 13 alleged sales of narcotics on the premises by employees of Fox Hunter; that Respondent had requested a hearing on the charges; that Petitioner would seek license revocation with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes (1983); that the Petitioner would present evidence at the hearing in support of license revocation with prejudice; and that the Knights would be advised of the date, time and location of the hearing at a later date. The record does not reveal that Petitioner ever advised the Knights as to the date, time and location of the hearing, however, counsel for Respondent announced at the time of the hearing that he would be representing the Knights. Additionally, the record does not reveal that a copy of the original or Amended Notice To Show Cause was ever furnished to the Knights. Nor does the record reveal that the Knights had any knowledge of any previous violations at the premises. On April 29, 1985, Orlando Police Officer Kerry Farney (Farney) went to the premises of Fox Hunter and spoke to dancer Joyce Travis concerning the purchase of cocaine. Joyce agreed to sell Farney a half gram for $50.00. Farney gave Joyce $55.00, including $5.00 for a dance which she performed, and Joyce returned to Farney a dollar bill wrapped around two- plastic packages of cocaine. Officer Farney returned to the Fox Hunter on April 30, 1985, and spoke with dancer Lisa Nolen a/k/a Dusty concerning the purchase of a quarter gram of cocaine. Dusty agreed to sell the cocaine and obtained $25.00 from Farney. She later returned to Farney and handed him a plastic package containing cocaine. Officer Farney again returned to the Fox Hunter on May 2, 1985 and was later met there on this same day by Investigator Rodney Russ (Russ). The Officers arranged to purchase cocaine from the dancer Dusty. Farney gave Dusty $30.00, $5.00 for a dance and $25.00 for a quarter gram of cocaine. Russ gave Dusty $50.00 for one half gram of cocaine. After going into the dancers' locker room, Dusty returned to the officers and handed to Farney a dollar bill wrapped around two plastic packages of cocaine and asked Farney to pass it to Russ. Farney passed the cocaine wrapped in the money to Russ which Russ opened and inspected the two plastic-packages of cocaine contained therein. Later that same night Dusty delivered the cocaine to Farney which he had paid for earlier. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 3, 1985 and entered into conversation with dancer Laura, who asked if he was looking for a quarter gram of cocaine. Russ stated that he wanted a half gram and Laura responded that she would see what she could do. After speaking with an unknown male patron, Laura returned to Russ and stated that all he had left was three- tenths of a gram for $30.00. Russ stated that he would take the three tenths of a gram and gave Laura $30.00. Laura again approached the unknown patron and then returned to Russ after being assured by Russ that he was not a cop or with law enforcement, placed a bill in his pocket. Russ removed and opened the bill and inspected the plastic package of cocaine. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 7, 1985 and entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Joyce stated that she would be able to get it later. Joyce subsequently asked Russ how much he wanted to buy and Russ responded that he wanted a half gram. Russ gave Joyce a $100.00 bill and she went into the women's dressing room. Joyce later returned to Russ and gave him $25.00 change wrapped around two clear plastic packages of cocaine. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter on May 8, 1985, and was solicited by dancer Joyce for the purchase of two beers. Russ returned to the premises of the Fox Hunter on May 9, 1985, and entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Joyce left Russ to talk to an unidentified black male and returned to inform Russ that she could get the half gram of cocaine from the black male after he split it up and that Russ would have delivery soon. The male went into the restroom and when he emerged from the restroom, Joyce approached him and then went into the women's restroom. After exiting the restroom, Joyce performed a dance for Russ, during which she told him to take a dollar bill out of her garter. Russ took the dollar bill and opened it up to inspect two tinfoil packages of cocaine. Russ returned to the licensed premises on May 10, 1985, and again entered into conversation with the dancer Joyce concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. When Joyce agreed, Russ handed her $75.00. Joyce subsequently returned to Russ and handed him a plastic package of cocaine which Russ placed into the cellophane wrapper of his cigarette pack. Joyce stated that the person from whom she had obtained the cocaine only had a quarter gram but would be getting a delivery soon, at which time Joyce would give Russ his other quarter gram. Russ did not obtain the additional quarter gram prior to leaving the premises on this occasion. Russ returned to the Fox Hunter later the night of May 10, 1985 and spoke with Joyce about obtaining his remaining quarter gram of cocaine and she advised him that delivery had not been made. Russ then talked with dancer Laura about obtaining some cocaine. Laura first said that it would be after 2:00 a.m. when the bar closed but when Russ told her he could not wait that long she obtained a short quarter gram from an unidentified white male. Laura then left to go into the women's restroom. When she returned to Russ, Laura placed a plastic package of cocaine in his pocket stating that she had tried the substance and it was good. Russ removed the package from his pocket and inspected it. As Russ was leaving, Joyce approached him near the entrance and handed him a plastic package containing his remaining quarter gram of cocaine. Russ returned to the premises of the Fox Hunter on May 15, 1985, and was solicited by the dancer Dusty to purchase her a bottle of champagne for $5.75, which he did. Russ again went to the Fox Hunter on May 16, 1985 and entered into conversation with the dancer Laura concerning the purchase of a half gram of cocaine. Laura stated that she would be able to get him some. Laura approached and spoke to an unknown patron and the dancer Michelle, after which she went into the women's dressing room. She shortly returned to Russ and placed two plastic packages of cocaine into his pocket. On May 17, 1985, the Respondent served an Emergency Order of Suspension and Search Warrant on the Fox Hunter. Located during the search was a dollar bill wrapped around a package of cocaine, a plastic package of cocaine, a package of marijuana and several marijuana cigarettes. The sale or delivery of the cocaine on April 29, 30, 1985 and May 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 16, 1985 to investigator Farney and Russ took place in and around the dance area of the premises. On April 20, 1982 the Respondent served a letter of warning to Fox Hunter alleging that on August 4, 1981, an employee had solicited the sale of an alcoholic beverage in violation of Section 562.131, Florida Statutes and further alleging that on October 30, 1981, an employee had delivered a controlled substance to a police officer on the premises. No proof was offered as to the disposition of those matters, or indeed, whether the incidents ever actually took place. In July, 1984, the manager of Fox Hunter --Lawrence Siegel -- apprehended one of its employees and a patron engaged in a drug transaction: he detained them and called the Orlando Police Department, and the two were taken into custody. The Petitioner's response to this action was to issue a citation against the Fox Hunter for the alleged sale, even though it was Lawrence Siegel who uncovered the transaction and apprehended the perpetrators. Mr. Siegel contacted Lt. Farmer of the Orlando Police Department and requested assistance in placing an undercover officer in the lounge as an employee. Mr. Siegel wanted to interdict narcotics and assist in the apprehension of the persons who might be dealing with them. However, the request was turned down because, as Lt. Farmer explained, the police department did not have the necessary resources to assist in this manner. The record is not clear as to the period of time Lawrence Siegel maintained contact with the police, but he did contact them about the problem, identifying suspected dealers and providing names and descriptions of vehicles. However, Jason Robaudo replaced Lawrence Siegel as night manager during this period of time. James Robaudo was present in the licensed premises during most of, if not all of, the time during which the unlawful activities accursed. Although the record is not entirely clear on the details, there were other alcoholic beverage establishments in the same general area that had been charged with the sale of controlled substances on the premises where a heavy fine plus a short license suspension had been imposed rather than a license revocation or a license revocation with prejudice.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 58-1581, Series 2-COP, issued to 1718, Inc., d/b/a Fox Hunter. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Richard L. Wilson, Esq. 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Café was a restaurant, serving full course meals, and was located at 1599 North State Road 7, Lauderhill, Florida. At all times material hereto, the sole owner of Café was Mary Fernand. On December 18, 2003, Café, through Ms. Fernand, made application for a license from DABT. The type of license applied for was a retail alcoholic beverage license, in particular a special alcoholic beverage license, allowing it to purchase and sell alcoholic beverages. In a section of the application, "SECTION VIII-SPECIAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS," Ms. Fernand was notified, among other things, that the "Special Alcoholic Beverage License" was "issued pursuant to 561.20(2)(b), Florida Statute [sic] or Special Act and as such we acknowledge the following requirements must be met and maintained: ... DERIVE 51 % OF GROSS REVENUE FROM FOOD AND NON- ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SERVICE OF FULL COURSE MEALS MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE BEING SERVED." As the person completing the application, Ms. Fernand was required to read, initial, and date Section VIII. A temporary special alcoholic license was issued by DABT to Café on December 18, 2003. The application was approved by DABT on December 19, 2003, and, subsequently, a permanent special alcoholic license was issued by DABT. DABT issued Café license number BEV16-17022 4-COP SRX. The license was held through Ms. Fernand. As a result of having been issued such a license by DABT, Café was and is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of DABT. DABT conducts periodic audits of all restaurants holding a special SRX license to make sure that the restaurants are complying with the special license requirements. As part of this audit process, special agents from DABT, among other things, conduct announced visits, as well as undercover visits, at the restaurants and request the licensee to submit all necessary records for the audit. A SRX license holder has a continuing requirement to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT places the burden upon the licensee to show compliance with the SRX license requirements. Furthermore, DABT requires the licensee to keep clear, legible records in English and to submit such records if requested by one of its agents. When DABT requests the licensee to produce the records to establish compliance with the SRX license requirements, but the licensee fails to show compliance through the requested records, DABT determines that the licensee was not meeting the requirements to operate with the SRX license. The proof that DABT considers to establish compliance include monthly sales and purchase records of food and non- alcoholic beverages and sales and purchase records of alcoholic beverages, guest checks, z-tapes, monthly income statements (showing separately the food and non-alcoholic beverage sales), and sales of alcoholic beverages. On July 19, 2004, DABT's Special Agent Trenesa Davis visited Café to request Café to produce the records necessary for an audit under the SRX license. She found Café closed and locked. Special Agent Davis obtained Ms. Fernand's telephone number and contacted her that same day. Special Agent Davis informed Ms. Fernand of the records needed for the audit, and Ms. Fernand indicated that she would provide the requested records on July 21, 2004. However, Ms. Fernand failed to provide the requested records on July 21, 2004. The following day, July 22, 2004, Special Agent Davis again contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone. Ms. Fernand indicated that she would provide the requested records on July 23, 2004. But, again, Ms. Fernand failed to provide the requested records. On July 26, 2004, once again, Special Agent Davis contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone regarding the non-production of the requested records. Ms. Fernand indicated that she was ill, and Special Agent Davis informed Ms. Fernand that she could come to where Ms. Fernand was living and issue her an official notice of what DABT needed, with the compliance date. Ms. Fernand agreed, and Special Agent Davis proceeded to where Ms. Fernand was living. On that same day, July 26, 2004, Special Agent Davis issued Ms. Fernand an official notice to produce certain documents. The notice provided, among other things, that Ms. Fernand had "14 days to produce the following records: Separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages & alcoholic beverages, Guest checks, cash register tapes, and any other documentation used to determine your food & beverage sales." Furthermore, the notice warned that "Failure to comply may result in administrative charges being filed against your alcoholic beverage license. *COMPLIANCE DATE AUGUST 13, 2004*." The notice was dated July 26, 2004. Ms. Fernand signed the notice. Ms. Fernand received the notice on July 26, 2004. On August 6, 2004, Special Agent Davis received a package from Café, but did not open it. She immediately took the package to DABT's auditor assigned to conduct Café's audit, Ronald Flores. Special Agent Davis opened the package in the presence of Auditor Flores. Inside the package were the following: (1) 11 receipts, dated between May 6 and June 23, 2004, showing purchases of alcohol from another vendor, BJ's Wholesale Club; (2) three blocks of guest checks: block one--numbered from 512402 to 512450; block two--numbered 100703, 100705, 100707- 100709, 100711, and from 100713 to 100750, with the guest checks from 100713 to 100750 being blank; and block three--numbered from 100592 to 100595 and 100632; and (3) 26 loose kitchen tickets, numbered from 84551 to 84570 and from 84572 to 84577. All of the kitchen tickets failed to reflect a date, the name Café or of any restaurant, and food sales. Further, the guest checks reflected only sales of alcoholic beverages; reflected only dates on those numbered 100708 and 100709 ("05-28-04" and "6/4"); and reflected dates ("4/18/04" through "5/31/04") and the name Café on those numbered 512402-512450, with the dates on three checks not being legible. The package contained no other record of food sales or purchases and no record of purchasing alcoholic beverages from distributors. Furthermore, the package contained no record of monthly schedules showing food and non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverage sales. Based on the records presented by Ms. Fernand, Auditor Flores was unable to perform an audit required by Café's SRX license and unable to make a determination as to whether Café met the 51 percent requirement of its license. On August 8, 2004, Special Agent Davis contacted Ms. Fernand by telephone in the presence of Auditor Flores, with the telephone on speaker-phone. Special Agent Davis inquired as to the whereabouts of Café's food and non-alcoholic beverage records. Ms. Fernand responded that she was not aware that Special Agent Davis wanted the food and non-alcoholic records but that she (Ms. Fernand) would provide them by August 13, 2004, which was the original compliance date of DABT's notice to produce records. However, Special Agent Davis did not receive any records from Ms. Fernand until August 16, 2004, three days beyond the compliance date to produce the records. The package received from Ms. Fernand contained three computer-generated documents for Café: an income statement, representing "6 Months Ended June 30, 2004"; a 2004 balance sheet, as of June 30, 2004 and 2003, and a balance sheet of liabilities and stockholders' equity, as of June 30, 2004 and 2003. Reflected at the bottom of each document was the following: "See Accountants' Compilation Report." The income statement reflected for January 1 through June 30, 2004, among other things, the following: food sales in the amount of $8,417.34 and alcohol sales in the amount of $3,039.66, totaling $11,457.00; gross profit in the amount of $5,942.51; total operating expenses in the amount of $23,901.19; and a net loss of income in the amount of $17,958.68. The income statement did not reflect monthly schedules of sales or any source of documents to verify the figures in the statement of income. No document in the package received on August 16, 2004, reflected its source or its creator, and none were signed. However, at hearing, Ms. Fernand admitted that she had prepared the income statement. Moreover, in the package received on August 16, 2004, no food sales and purchase records and no alcohol sales and purchase records were included. Again, based on the records presented by Ms. Fernand on August 16, 2004, as well as August 6, 2004, Auditor Flores was unable to perform an audit required by Café's SRX license and unable to make a determination as to whether Café met the 51 percent requirement of its license. On August 18, 2004, Auditor Flores forwarded to Special Agent Davis a memorandum advising her, among other things, that the records submitted by Café were incomplete to make a determination as to whether Café complied with the "SRX" requirements, that Café needed to provide the register tapes in order to verify sales, and that Café needed to provide monthly sales schedules with a breakdown of food and alcoholic beverage sales. Further, on August 18, 2004, Special Agent Davis issued a notice to Café that DABT intended to file an administrative complaint against it for failure to maintain records, citing the statutory provision, and SRX violations, citing the statutory provisions. The notice was mailed, certified to Café. Ms. Fernand admits that, between December 2003 and March 2004, Café sold food, as it was a "full restaurant," and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages; however, no alcoholic beverages were sold in December 2003. Further, she admits that, in December 2003, she had a "get together for a few friends" and a few patrons at Café; and that, in January 2004, a party was held at Café at which alcoholic beverages were sold of which she kept records. Additionally, Ms. Fernand acknowledges that she was aware that she was required to keep records and admits that she kept records of the food sales and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage sales. Although she obtained the license from DABT for Café in December 2003, Ms. Fernand did not open Café for business until April 17, 2004, as a grand opening. On June 26, 2004, Ms. Fernand lost access to Café as a result of being closed by the City of Fort Lauderdale. Also, in August 2004, she was evicted by the landlord of the building in which Café was located. Subsequently, she paid the landlord the back rent and was allowed to use the building again. She did not re-open Café until around November 20, 2004, even though the City of Fort Lauderdale notified her around September 7, 2004, that Café could be re-opened. Because of the eviction in August 2004, when Special Agent Davis requested the documents, Ms. Fernand had to request the landlord to go into Café and get the documents for her (Ms. Fernand). Ms. Fernand provided to Special Agent Davis the documents given to her by her landlord. Prior to losing access to the building in which Café was located, during the loss of access, and after re-gaining access, a box containing Café's records was located at Café. At no time, when she did not have access, did Ms. Fernand request the landlord to bring the box to her in order to provide food and beverage records to DABT. At no time, after gaining access to the building or prior to hearing, did Ms. Fernand review the records in the box and provide the requested food and beverage records to DABT.
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 Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café violated Section 561.20(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Finding that Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café violated Section 561.55(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Revoking the SRX license of Ran D Vou Café, d/b/a Ran D Vou Café, with prejudice for Ms. Mary Fernand not to obtain another SRX license for a five-year period, but without prejudice for her to apply for and obtain any other license for which she may be otherwise qualified to hold. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 24th day of April, 2006.
