The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Beverage Laws as alleged in Notice to Show cause dated January 3, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, held 2-COP license No. 61-00066 to sell alcoholic beverages at 311 Pennsylvania Avenue, San Antonio, Florida. On October 31, 1990 several Beverage agents entered The Establishment where a Halloween party was in progress among the St. Leo College students. Upon entering the bar an employee at the door checked identification and stamped the back of the entering patron's hand. An underage operator with DABT entered with another agent and the stamp placed on the back of the minor's hand could not be distinguished from the stamp on the hand of the adult agent. The minor went to the bar and purchased beer on two occasions without further questioning or identification by the bartender. Bartenders had been directed to sell beer to those with stamps or wrist bands as they had been cleared by the bouncer at the door as age-qualified to purchase alcoholic beverages. During the evening of October 31-November 1, 1990 several minors were arrested for possessing alcoholic beverages (beer) in bottles with Annheuser- Busch labels and several others had purchased beer from the bartender. The ages of these minors were verified by driver's licenses possessed by these patrons. One of the DABT agents, Sgt. Timothy Allen, had a discussion with James John Redman III who appeared to be in charge of The Establishment. Allen was told by Redman that Redman was the new owner of The Establishment and the papers verifying this ownership were in an attorney's office in Miami. No application to change ownership has been presented at the district office of the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is recommended that the 2-COP alcoholic beverage license No. 61-00066 issued to Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Lance Joseph, Esquire 9990 S.W. 77 Avenue, Suite 210 Miami, FL 33156 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Don D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated August 11, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing Florida's Beverage Law, and, specifically, with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. Sections 561.02 and 561.11(1), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Coluccis Attic, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 60-11724, Series 4 COP SRX, a special restaurant license which authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises of the restaurant of the same name located at 600 North Congress Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. On July 18, 2000, an inspector employed by the Department conducted a routine investigation of the restaurant. As part of the investigation, the investigator was provided a copy of the restaurant's sales report for the period from May 17, 2000, through August 6, 2000. The investigator calculated the percentages of gross revenue from the sale of food and of alcohol sales with respect to total gross sales, and the calculations showed that food sales were 31.5 percent of total gross sales.
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 Coluccis Attic, Inc., violated Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2000); Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 against Coluccis Attic, Inc.; and Revoking the special restaurant license of Coluccis Attic, Inc., without prejudice to apply for any other type of alcoholic beverage license but with prejudice to apply for a special restaurant license for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 21st day of August, 2001.
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.
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
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: At all times material to the charges, Ronald Wayne Diamond and Susan Joyce Saiia owned and operated a partnership trading as Susan's Las Olas Seafood Market at 1404 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida ("the licensed premises") On the licensed premises, they sold alcoholic beverages under the authority of alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS. On January 17 or 18, 1982,and on January 19, 1982, Broward County Sheriff's Department Detective Fernandez entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and negotiated with Respondent Ronald Diamond for the sale and delivery of cocaine and cannabis. Respondent Susan Saiia was present and aware of these negotiations, although she did not actively participate in them. On one of these occasions, she warned Respondent Diamond to be careful, that she had seen someone in the back alley who looked like he was wearing a recording device. On January 20, 1982, Respondent Diamond was arrested on charges of unlawful trafficking in cocaine and possessing cannabis in violation of Sections 893.135(1)(b) and 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes. He was taken to the licensed premises where a search warrant was executed and two ounces of marijuana were found in an office file cabinet. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) On May 6, 1982, the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, adjudging Respondent Diamond guilty of these felonies, sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and fined him $250,000 for trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to an additional five years for the possession of cannabis. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents' alcoholic beverage license No. 16-3029, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 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 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Hoggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice Graham, Esquire Suite 2 2161 E. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Howard M. Rasmussen 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 The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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, Suamy Corporation, held license number 23-21872, series 2APS, authorizing it to operate a beer and wine package store (the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) at the premises of a business known as Bristol Sundries, located at 2127 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises").2 Milagros Suarez was the sole shareholder, as well as the sole corporate officer, of the Respondent corporation. On February 11, 1997, Leonard DelMonte, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, undertook an inspection of the licensed premises. Upon entry into the premises, the agent observed shelves on his left that contained bottles of liquor on display, and behind the counter he observed more shelving, which contained more bottles of liquor on display, together with bottles of wine. A cash register was observed on the counter, and an employee was present to attend the needs of customers. The agent inspected, inventoried, and seized 19 bottles of distilled spirits (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-1 through 2-19) on the licensed premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The bottles were all sealed; labeled as distilled spirits, such as rum, scotch, gin, and vodka; and carried the name, trademark, or insignia of commonly known manufacturers of distilled spirits, such as Johnny Walker, Cuervo, Pinch, and Bombay. The bottles also had affixed to them price stickers, of the same type affixed to the wine that was offered for sale, and contained prices that were consistent with the retail price of the product. Given the facts, it is apparent that Respondent was offering the distilled spirits for sale on the licensed premises.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge set forth in the Administrative Action and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 for such violation, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1998, 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 27th day of January, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of a controlled substance (for which adjudication was withheld) is sufficient to support the imposition of discipline with regard to his alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to issue beverage licenses pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Prior to September 11, 2000, Respondent, doing business as Smiley's, was the owner and holder of a beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP, which permits him to sell beer and wine for consumption on premises. On October 9, 1998, Respondent was charged by information with sale and delivery of cocaine. He was acquitted of that charge on May 12, 2000. Subsequently in a separate incident, Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine and on September 11, 2000, pleaded no contest to that charge. Pursuant to Respondent's timely request for formal proceedings, Petitioner's counsel initiated discovery in the course of this administrative proceeding through a Request for Admissions to which Respondent failed to respond. Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this circumstance and, upon motion of Petitioner, the Request for Admissions was deemed admitted. Those admissions establish that Respondent entered a no contest plea on September 11, 2000, to the charge of possession of cocaine and that the plea bargain negotiated at that time also included two days' incarceration. Additionally, the admissions establish that Respondent is aware that possession of cocaine is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years. Respondent's own testimony is uncorroborated by other direct evidence and fails to establish that he possesses good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Kwilecki, Jr., Esquire 629 North Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. John P. Szabo Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent owes additional alcohol consumption tax.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Funtana Village, Inc., is the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 13-00155, Series 4-COP. The license is for its premises known as the "Spinnaker" located at 8795 Thomas Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. The Spinnaker is an entertainment facility that serves alcoholic beverages. The availability of alcoholic beverages is part of the entertainment experience at the Spinnaker. The facility has five live stages and provides other sources of entertainment. It budgets and spends $500,000 to $600,000 per year for entertainment, such as musical shows, acts and bands. During the period of May 4, 1995, through December 18, 1995, the Division performed a surcharge tax audit of the Respondent. The surcharge tax is levied on ounces (volume) of beer, wine and liquor sold for consumption on the vendor's premises. See Rule 61A-4.063, Florida Administrative Code. The Division audits vendors' monthly surcharge reports in order to confirm their accuracy and ensure compliance with statutory and rule requirements, as well as ensure that the proper amount of surcharge tax is paid. In general licensed vendors may select from two methods for reporting the surcharge, the sales method and the purchase method. Under the sales method, vendors pay the surcharge on the volume amount of alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the licensed premises. Under the purchase method, vendors pay the surcharge on the volume amount of alcoholic beverages purchased from that vendor's alcohol distributor. In this case, the audit covered the reporting period of July 1, 1994, through March 31,1995. Respondent elected the sales method of payment. The audit was conducted by Marie Carpenter, an auditor employed by the Petitioner. Prior to the audit involved in this case, the Division performed an audit of Respondent covering the period of July 1, 1990, through November 30, 1992. Another auditor from the Division performed the audit. Pursuant to negotiation and agreement with Petitioner, Respondent performed a self-audit for the period from December 1, 1992, through June 30, 1994. The results of the self-audit were accepted by Petitioner. A settlement was entered into by both parties. The audit in issue in this action starts with the day immediately following the end of the self-audit period, July 1, 1994. Importantly, in preparing the reports for the audit involved in this case, Respondent followed the exact methodology and percentages used in calculating the tax due under the previous audit which had resulted in a settlement agreement between Respondent and Petitioner and was approved by Petitioner. In performing the July 1, 1994, through March 31, 1995, audit, the auditor did not review the prior self-audit because each audit should stand on its own merits. She also used slightly different mathematical methods and percentages to arrive at the amounts the Division has alleged are due. The purpose of the current audit was to determine whether accurate records were being kept by the Respondent and whether accurate deductions of non-surchargeable (or free) drinks were being calculated by the Respondent. In the December 22, 1995, report on the audit, the auditor found that the Spinnaker's records as kept were accurate and traced correctly throughout the audit trail. In the audit the Division calculated the amount of the surcharge owed by Respondent using the "sales depletion method." This formula is provided for in the Division's rules. Under the formula, the Division first determined the Respondent's beginning inventory by volume for July 1, 1994. The figure used by Respondent was gleaned from the records Respondent provided to the Division's auditor. However, the evidence showed that the figures the auditor used for the beginning inventory were too low. The more accurate figures for the beginning inventory were the ending inventory figures from the previous self-audit period, which the Division had accepted and approved in the earlier settlement agreement. The more accurate figures should have been used by the Division. Second, the purchases by volume of alcoholic beverages made by the Respondent during the audit period were added to the beginning inventory figures to yield total inventory figures. Third, the ending inventory of alcoholic beverages on March 31, 1995, was determined. Again, the purchase information and ending inventory information was obtained from the records of the Respondent and independently confirmed from the records of the Respondent's distributor. Fourth, the inventory figures were subtracted from the total inventory figures to yield the gross gallonage available for sale during the audit period. Fifth, adjustments or deductions were made to the gross gallonage figures to yield the net gallonage figures to which the surcharge is applied. Some of the deductions to the gross gallonage figures were deductions for spillage, cooking and "free" drinks. Finally, the total surcharge amount was calculated and compared to the amount already reported and paid to determine if any surcharge was under-reported or over-reported. In this case, it was found the Respondent under-reported the surcharge due. The under-reporting was due to the Respondent's interpretation of the deduction allowed for free drinks. In essence, the issue was whether drinks given away by Respondent to customers, who have paid a cover charge to enter the premises or who have bought a membership in the Spinnaker, are free or sold because some consideration has been given by the customer for the drink. The Respondent based its interpretation on the way free drinks were handled in the settlement agreement it had entered into earlier. The witnesses confirmed that if cover charges were not treated as consideration for alcoholic beverages, the amount claimed by Petitioner to be due would be zero. The Petitioner has had a long-standing policy that a "cover charge" constitutes consideration for alcoholic beverages. This policy is contained in the Division's audit manual. The manual does not provide any leeway to auditors to apply or not to apply the policy, depending on the facts of the case. This policy has never been promulgated as a rule. Based on the policy, Petitioner determined that free drinks served by Respondent to those paying a cover charge for admission to Spinnaker were considered "sold" and therefore subject to the surcharge. The evidence showed that Respondent does not always charge a cover charge for admission to its facility. Respondent, during the course of the audit, provided the auditor with a schedule of its free drink offers for the audit period. The schedule demonstrated: Cover charges were collected even when there were no free drink specials. Respondent provided free drinks without requiring payment of a cover charge. Cover charges were imposed even after free drink specials ended. Cover charges fluctuated with the type of entertainment and the volume of business. Respondent never charged a cover charge where there was no entertainment. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent tracks the amount of cover charge needed to be generated to pay for the live entertainment and has never considered the cover charge as payment for any alcoholic beverages it sells. In fact, whether admission to Respondent's premises is charged appears to depend on two factors, live entertainment and seasonal customer volume. Cover charges were unrelated to any normal drink sales. Petitioner also disallowed deductions for membership cards purchased by patrons. Information provided by Respondent demonstrated that 77.5 percent of all membership cards were given away and that 22.5 percent were sold. Petitioner projected this ratio through the audit period and disallowed 22.5 percent of all alcoholic beverages given away to members because purchase of the membership cards was construed to be consideration for the drinks served. The membership cards were provided to patrons to gain free admission to the facility (exceptions exist for certain entertainment) and, at the time of the audit, for free parking, discounts on clothing, one-third discounted drinks and, on occasion, free drinks. Admittedly, the benefit value of member "free drinks," when compared with the value of other member benefits, is little. However, there is some value exchanged for the price of the membership card and some consideration has passed. Therefore, the surcharge is appropriately applied by the Division to the free drinks served to members. In September 1997, the Division at Respondent's request reviewed the audit and made certain adjustments to its earlier findings. The audit was adjusted based on a better explanation from Respondent of its draft beer giveaways and an error in the original audit. The re-audit performed by the auditor in September 1997 reduced the amount of the surcharge reported to be due in December 1995 from a total of $45,673.93 to a total of $19,619.26 of which $16,761.04 was the surcharge due; $2,549.77 was for penalties and $308.45 was for interest. However, the auditor in the re-audit adjusted for the draft beer giveaways by applying 20 percent to the free drinks rung up on the cash register to determine the deduction for free drinks. The earlier audit used in the settlement agreement applied the percentage to the total purchases to determine the deduction for free drinks. The method and procedures for establishing the percent of inventory which constituted free drinks in the earlier audit were standard auditing processes. The evidence did not support a change in that process. Therefore, the giveaway percentage should have been applied as it was in the audit for the settlement agreement. That method was approved by the Division and should have been followed for the purpose of consistency in the audit at issue here. The penalty was predicated on a prior action involving these two parties; however, the Consent Order entered in that prior action provided that the initial action would not be considered as a basis for imposing a penalty in any subsequent proceeding involving these issues. Therefore, the prior action cannot be used to increase the penalty, if any, imposed on Petitioner. Moreover, the under-reporting of the surcharge by Respondent was due to its legitimate reliance on the methodology and percentages used in the settlement agreement between it and Petitioner. Reliance on those provisions was reasonable and should not cause them to be penalized. Therefore, no penalty should be imposed on Respondent. Other than as noted above, the Division’s procedures and methodologies used in the audit at issue here were reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the assessment of surcharge principal and interest by Petitioner against Respondent be re-calculated as outlined above and any penalty be waived. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert C. Penson, Esquire Penson and Padgett Post Office Box 1327 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Boyd, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
