The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds stated in petitioner's Notice to Show Cause, as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Respondent corporation holds alcoholic beverage license No. 23-00739, Series 4 COP, issued by the DABT, and operates a bar known as Doc Watson's ("the licensed premises") at 4591 Northwest 36th Street, Miami Springs, Florida. Entertainment is provided by female dancers who perform to jukebox music. (Testimony of Harden; P-1, R-1.) As to Count I II. Sale, Use, or Possession of Drugs on the Licensed Premises On November 8, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., undercover Beverage Agent Donald Chastain purchased cocaine for $70 from Mike Pack, a doorman employed by respondent. The sale took place in the storeroom at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises. During the drug transaction, Pack remarked that he "had been turning them [cocaine sales] over like hotcakes- -10 to 12 a day." (Testimony of Chastain.) On November 14, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain purchased a clear plastic baggie of cocaine (a white powder) for $70 from doorman Pack. The transaction took place, in plain view, at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises. (Testimony of Chastain.) On November 21, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain again purchased a clear plastic baggie of cocaine for 565 from doorman Pack. The sale took place at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises, and in plain view of Carlos Santana (known as "Manny") , a male patron. (Testimony of Chastain.) On December 11, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain again approached doorman Pack at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises and offered to buy cocaine. Pack replied that he had none but would try to find some; he then left his post at the bar entrance, walked to the pool table area where he talked with Sonya Olitsky, a female dancer, then returned to Agent Chastain. Doorman Pack then sold a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine to Agent Chastain for 570. (Testimony of Chastain.) On December 21, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain again approached doorman Pack at the east entrance to the licensed premises and asked to purchase cocaine. Pack replied that he had none but could obtain some; a little later, Agent Chastain approached Pack again, but he still did not have any cocaine available. Doorman Pack then offered to obtain some from another employee on the licensed premises; after Chastain gave him 570, Pack left his post and, a few minutes later, returned and gave Agent Chastain a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine. The drug exchange took place in plain view at doorman Pack's duty station, the east entrance to the bar. (Testimony of Chastain.) On February 10, 1982, doorman Pack, off duty at the time, approached Agent Chastain on the licensed premises and asked if he was looking for cocaine. Chastain said yes; Pack replied that it would cost 570. Chastain then gave him 570 for a white plastic baggie containing cocaine; this transaction occurred at the entrance to the east bar, in plain view of Victor Narin, the on-duty doorman. After the sale, at Pack's request, Chastain brought the cocaine to a bathroom on the premises where Pack ingested a small quantity. (Testimony of Chastain.) On February 15, 1982, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain entered the premises. Doorman Pack asked him if he wanted to buy some excellent cocaine; Chastain agreed and handed him $70 for a clear plastic baggie of cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at Pack's duty station at the east entrance to the west bar. (Testimony of Chastain.) On February 23, 1982, Agent Chastain met doorman Pack at his duty station at the east entrance to the west bar and asked if he had any cocaine for sale; Pack replied that he had none but sent Ray Patterson, an off-duty doorman, to get Joe Hevia, a patron. Hevia told Chastain that he would need $70 "up- front"; Chastain was reluctant to agree since he didn't know Hevia. Doorman Pack then obtained a clear plastic baggie of cocaine from Benjamin Maples, 2/ a former doorman on the premises, and sold it to Chastain for $70. This transaction took place in plain view at the east entrance to the west bar. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Count II On December 15, 1981, Agent Chastain approached Dorothy E. Zink, a dancer employed by respondent, and asked if he could buy some cocaine; she agreed. He gave her $70; she directed him to a pay telephone across from the stage area on the licensed premises where he found a small baggie of cocaine in the coin return slot. (Testimony of Chastain.) Later that evening, Agent Chastain asked dancer Zink if she knew where he could get some quaaludes; she agreed to sell him some. He handed her $12, and she told him the quaaludes would be placed in the same coin return slot of the pay telephone used earlier. He proceeded to the pay telephone and found a plastic bag containing four tablets of diazepam. (Testimony of Chastain; P-7.) On January 4, 1982, Agent Chastain approached dancer Zink on the licensed premises and gave her $70 for the purchase of cocaine. After checking elsewhere in the bar, she returned and told him that she could only find one- half a gram for $35. Thereafter, he met her by the pay telephone and, in plain view, gave him a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine. (Testimony of Chastain.) On January 21, 1982, in response to Agent Chastain's inquiry, dancer Zink agreed to sell him cocaine for $70. He slowly counted out $70 while in the stage area of the west bar of the licensed premises and in plain view of several nearby patrons. He placed the money in an address book held by dancer Zink, then ;net her at the pay telephone where she handed him a folded piece of paper containing cocaine. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Count III On January 26, 1982, Darlene Harper, Melaine Goransky, and Linda Pryor, dancers employed by respondent, exited the west entrance of the licensed premises with purses in hand. They entered a parked vehicle where they removed from one of the purses a marijuana cigarette which they lit and passed between them. (Testimony of Johnson; P-3, P-4.) As to Count IV On February 10, 1982, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain entered the west bar of the licensed premises. Michael Stoodley, the doorman, told him that doorman Pack had some good cocaine for sale. Chastain replied that he had just bought some; Stoodley then asked Chastain to give him some. After Chastain handed him the cocaine, Stoodley entered the storeroom near the east entrance and ingested some. Upon exiting the storeroom, doorman Stoodley handed him a tablet containing methaqualone. (Testimony of Chastain.) When Agent Chastain entered the licensed premises on March 4, 1982, doorman Pack approached him and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine for $75. Chastain declined but said he wanted to buy some quaaludes. Pack said to contact doorman Stoodley, who was then on duty at the entrance to the east bar. Agent Chastain then proceeded to the entrance and bought four methaqualone tablets from doorman Stoodley for $12. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Count V On February 23, 1982, Benjamin Maples supplied cocaine to doorman Pack which was, in turn, sold to Agent Chastain on the licensed premises. (See paragraph 9 above.) He was, however, no longer employed by respondent, since he had been fired in October, 1981. (Testimony of Chastain, Harden, Swanfeld.) On February 27, 1982, after midnight, Agent Chastain entered the licensed premises and discussed with doormen Patterson, Pack, and former doorman Maples a cocaine purchase he had made there two days earlier. Maples then offered to sell Chastain a gram of cocaine. Chastain agreed and handed Maples $70 in return for a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine. But, when this transaction took place, Maples was not an employee of the respondent. (Testimony of Chastain, Harden, Swanfeld, Coronado.) As to Count VI On February 25, 1982, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain entered the licensed premises and asked Dale Patterson, the doorman on duty, if he knew where he could buy some cocaine. Patterson told him he would sell him one gram for $100. After Chastain balked at the price, Patterson lowered it to $80 and told him to check back with him in 15 minutes. Later, when Chastain returned, Patterson introduced him to Jack Corderra, a patron, who took him to a room separating the two bars on the licensed premises and sold him two lumps of cocaine for $80. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Counts VII and VIII Between November 8, 1981, and March 6, 1982, illicit drugs, including cocaine, methaqualone, marijuana, and percodan (oxycodone) were kept, sold, and delivered on the licensed premises in the manner described herein. As to Count IX through XIII Pursuant to a search warrant executed on the licensed premises on March 6, 1982, respondent's employees and their possessions were searched. Percodan, containing oxycodone, was found in the purse of dancer Cynthia Lytle; marijuana was found in the purse of dancer Margaret McLain; diazepam was found in the purse of dancer Nicole Moon; marijuana was found in the purse of dancer Deronda Doolittle; and a packet of cocaine was found on waitress Ruth Robinson. (Testimony of Houston, Chastain.) III. Respondent's Management and Supervision of the Licensed Premises A. The No-Drug Policy Both before and during the time in which these drug transactions occurred on the licensed premises, respondent announced a no-drug policy to its employees. It posted notices and distributed memoranda prohibiting the possession, use, or sale of any illicit drugs on the premises; employees were told to report any drug violations to the manager and warned that violation of the no-drug policy would result in immediate dismissal. (Testimony of Harden; R-1, R-3.) During the time in question, respondent was aware that complaints had been made to DABT about narcotic violations occurring on the licensed premises. By letter to the Dade County Liquor Consortium, Inc., dated November 2, 1981, DABT expressed a hope that the owners of Doc Watson's, and several other named licensees, "will strictly supervise the conduct of their employees (P-2.) Respondent requested information concerning the complaints; DABT did not provide the requested information because it was conducting an ongoing drug investigation of the premises and did not know, at that time, whether management was involved in illicit drug activities. Respondent also sought advice from Miami Springs police officers on how to control illegal drug activities. (Testimony of Harris, Lifset; P-2, R-21.) Respondent took several steps to implement its no-drug policy. In February, 1981, it hired Larry Williams, a former police officer, as its-new night manager. Williams was instructed to eliminate drug violations on the premises; during the next several months he caught four employees possessing, using, or selling drugs and summarily fired them. Between 1980 and 1981, several other employees had been fired because of suspected use of drugs on the licensed premises. When customers were observed passing illicit drugs, they were asked to leave the premises. (Testimony of Williams, Lifset, Milligan, Sayer, Harden; R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9.) Respondent required its employees to keep their personal belongings in lockers provided on the premises. The combinations to the locks were known to respondent, and it would occasionally spot search the lockers for illicit drugs. (Testimony of Harden, Hoffman.) Respondent reiterated its no-drug policy at its staff meetings held every four to six weeks. (Testimony of Harden, Lifset, Williams.) Neither James Harden, sole stockholder of the respondent corporation, nor any of respondent's managers were personally involved in any of the illicit drug violations described in Part II above. H. Widespread and Persistent Drug Trafficking on the Licensed Premises Despite respondent's announced no-drug policy, employees, during the time in question, engaged in illicit drug activities on the licensed premises in a persistent and practiced manner. Beverage Agent Chastain was successful in purchasing illicit drugs during one-half of his 25-30 visits to the licensed premises. Employees who did not have drugs available at the time often helped him locate and purchase drugs from others on the premises. (Testimony of Chastain, Houston.) These drug transactions were not isolated events. Drug trafficking on the premises was widespread and occurred in plain view of other employees and patrons. Drugs were sold and talked about in an open manner. For instance, on March 2, 198.2-- when Agent Chastain stepped from his car in respondent's parking lot--doorman Pack called down from an apartment on the second floor above the licensed premises and, in a loud voice, asked him if he wanted some white powder, meaning cocaine. (Testimony of Chastain.) Many of the 75 employees of respondent were involved or implicated in the drug transactions described in Part II above. Out of a total of six doormen, three sold drugs to Agent Chastain. Of approximately five waitresses employed by respondent, two were arrested for possessing illicit drugs on March 6, 1982. Of the 30-35 dancers, at least five engaged in illicit drug activities on the premises between November, 1981, and March, 1982. (Testimony of Chastain, Houston.) C. Respondent's Failure to Diligently Enforce its No-Drug Policy By November, 1981, the owner of respondent was aware that illicit drug activities had been occurring on its licensed premises. Earlier in the year he had hired a former policeman as night manager to control such activities; several persons had been fired for illicit drug activities on the premises. (Testimony of Harris, Harden, Williams.) Respondent was also aware of concrete steps--suggested by DABT--which could be taken by bar owners to prevent illicit drug activity on their premises. 3/ Those steps included giving polygraph examinations to employees, forbidding employees access to their personal belongings while on duty, checking the background of prospective employees for drug history, strictly enforcing rules of conduct for employees, and periodically searching employees. (Testimony of Harris, Harden.) Under these circumstances, respondent failed to diligently supervise its employees and enforce its no-drug policy between November, 1981, and March, 1982. Employees who violated the no-drug policy, such as Darlene Harper, Melanie Goransky, and Linda Pryor (see paragraph 14 above) , were not immediately dismissed. Neither was dancer Dorothy Zink, although day-manager Marilyn Lifset suspected her of selling drugs. Employee searches and spot checks were haphazard and infrequent: Jack Wandel, a bartender for six years, and Sandra Sayer, a waitress for 3 1/2 years, had never been searched; Ann Hoffman, a dancer for five months, had never been searched; Sandra Olitsky, a dancer for two years, and Kathy Mitler, a bartender for eight months, had each been searched once. (Testimony of Chastain, Lifset, Wandel, Sayer, Hoffman, Olitsky, Mitler.) Night-manager Larry Williams conscientiously enforced the no-drug policy between February and October, 1981. A former police officer, Williams watched his employees closely and fired employees he suspected of drug trafficking. But, manager Williams left respondent's employment in October, 1981, before the drug violations in question here occurred. There is no evidence to indicate that his eventual replacement, who has since left respondent's employment, enforced the no-drug policy with equal commitment. Most of the illicit drug activities encompassed by the charges at issue occurred during the night shift. (Testimony of Williams, Harden, Chastain.) Respondent neglected to take reasonable steps to effectively carry out its no-drug policy. Although it knew illicit drug activity had occurred on the premises it: (1) failed to conduct frequent and thorough spot searches of its employees; (2) failed to promptly dismiss employees who violated the policy; (3) failed to consistently investigate the background of prospective employees; (4) failed to administer polygraph examinations; (5) failed to prohibit employee access to personal belongings while on duty; and (6) failed to closely monitor and supervise its nightshift employees for the purpose of detecting illicit drug activity. IV. Prior Record Licensee has never before been cited for any violation of the Beverage Law. (Testimony of Harden.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days, with credit given for any period of suspension effected by the Emergency Order of Suspension executed in March, 1982. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, holds Beverage License No. 63-1339, Series 2-CO. Under this license, she operated a business establishment named Fred Said's located at 913 West Robinson Street, Lakeland, Florida. On December 3, 1982, Beverage Officer Randall Robert West, accompanied by Dennis B. Russo of the Polk County Sheriff's Department, initiated an undercover investigation of Fred Said's. They arrived at the licensed premises approximately 2 00 p.m. Fred Tucker was behind the bar and served them two beers. The Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was seated on a stool behind the bar. After a short time, Fred Tucker went out in the back of the bar to work on some construction. While he was out back, Deputy Russo approached Tucker about buying some marijuana. Tucker indicated he had some and they went back into the bar where Tucker retrieved a plastic bag of what he represented to be marijuana. The bag was taken from a drawer behind the bar and when Tucker opened the drawer, Officer West saw other bass of what appeared to be marijuana in the drawer. Tucker handed the bag to Deputy Russo who paid him 825. The bag was later verified by laboratory analysis to contain approximately 9 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance listed in Florida Statute 893.03. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). When Fred Tucker took the bag of marijuana out of the drawer, the Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was still seated behind the bar a few feet from the drawer and Fred Tucker. The drawer was in a clear line of sight from where she was seated. On December 14, 1982, Officer West, along with Investigator Russo and Deputy Nicolas H. Del Costello, returned to Fred Said's. When they arrived, the Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was seated behind the bar. Officer West asked Ms. Kinsey if Fred Tucker was around. He then asked "Does Tucker have a bag for sale?" "Bag" is a common term for marijuana. In response to the question about the "bag for sale", Linda Diane Kinsey nodded her head yes and then got up and went to the back of the bar and called Tucker. Tucker came in and walked over to the game area where officer West and his companions were. After asking what they wanted, Tucker took a bag of marijuana out of his docket and sold it to Officer West. The bag was later confirmed by laboratory analysis to contain approximately 12 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893.03, Florida Statutes. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the transfer of marijuana took place on December 14, 1982, on the licensed premises, the Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was seated behind the bar approximately 30 feet away from where the transfer took place. On December 16, 1982, Officer West, accompanied by Investigator Russo, returned to Fred Said's with a search warrant. In the course of the search of the licensed premises, two plastic bags containing seeds were found. These bags were in the drawer behind the bar from which Fred Tucker had taken the bag of marijuana on December 3, 1982. The bags of seeds were later verified by laboratory analysis to contain 25 grams and 4.6 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance listed in Florida Statute 893.03. During December, 1982, Mr. Fred Tucker was employed as manager of Fred Said's. On December 3, 1982, he was tending bar and was observed signing an invoice for a beer delivery that occurred while Officer West and Investigator Russo were present. The Respondent testified that she was not aware of Fred Tucker's drug activity. However, she and Mr. Tucker were living together prior to December 16, 1982, and they scent a lot of time together. She was also present in the bar at the time of the purchases on December 3 and December 14. She admitted on cross examination that she was not sure he was dealing but she never asked. She did not recall telling Officer West on December 14 that Fred Tucker had a bag for sale but did not specifically deny such a conversation. She also testified that even while sitting behind the bar, she was not aware of what was going on in the licensed premises. There was no evidence that she, as licensee, had taken any steps to ensure that the premises were properly supervised and not being used for illegal purposes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license he revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Linda Diane Kinsey 3333 Baird Street Lakeland, Florida 33805
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulations of the parties, the documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ceola Virginia Cutliff is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-06844, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Night Shift, located at 6704 N.W. 18th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On or about September 18, 1987, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) Investigators R. Campbell, R. Thompson and C. Houston entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics task force investigation. An individual named "Frances" was on duty at the bar. The investigators observed Frances sell what appeared to be narcotics to several patrons on the licensed premises. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigator Houston approached Frances and asked to purchase narcotics. Frances and Investigator Houston then went to the rear of the bar where Frances sold 2 pieces of "crack" cocaine to Investigator Houston for $10.00. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Investigator Campbell asked Frances if he could purchase narcotics. Frances presented a piece of rock cocaine which Investigator Campbell purchased for $5.00. This transaction took place in plain view of other individuals in the licensed premises. Frances, upon making a sale, would take the money and give it to a black male called "Spider" a/k/a Arthur Dorsey. Spider would then retain the money. On September 19, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. On duty that night, was a black female known as "Josephine". Spider was also on the licensed premises positioned in the D.J.'s booth, apparently trying to fix a speaker. Houston and Thompson had observed a black male, named "Gary", exchanging an unknown substance for money with various individuals, immediately outside the licensed premises. Gary, upon receiving money in exchange for the unknown substance, would go into the licensed premises and hand the money to Spider. Later that evening, Investigator Houston noticed that Spider had a brown paper bag in his hand. Gary and Spider proceeded to the bathroom on the licensed premises. After exiting the bathroom, Gary left the premises and Spider went behind the bar and began counting a large amount of money onto the counter of the bar. Spider placed the money in his back pocket. Investigator Thompson then inquired whether Spider could sell him some crack cocaine. Spider acknowledged that he could and proceeded with Thompson to the rear of the bar, where Spider sold Thompson 20 pieces of rock cocaine for $100.00. On September 22, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. Bartender Josephine-was on duty at that time along with another black female known as "Niecey". When the investigators inquired as to the whereabouts of Spider, Niecey replied that "he went home to cook up the stuff because they were very low on supply." Niecey reiterated the above statement on numerous occasions when individuals would enter the bar searching for Spider. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Spider appeared on the licensed premises with a brown paper bag in his possession. Patrons that had been waiting outside the premises came inside and Niecey locked the doors to the front and rear exits of the bar. Spider went to the D.J.'s booth and pbured the contents of the paper bag onto the counter inside the booth. The bag contained approximately 200 small zip-lock bags containing suspected crack cocaine. The patrons who had been waiting outside for the arrival of Spider then proceeded to line up in front of the D.J.'s booth in order to make purchases. Niecey would take the money from the individual patrons and Spider would deliver the crack cocaine. Investigator Houston got in line and upon arriving at the booth, purchased 20 packets of crack cocaine from Spider in exchange for $100.00. These transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On September 23, 1987, Investigators Houston, Thompson and Campbell entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The barmaid on duty was Josephine. Spider was positioned in the D.J.'s booth making sales to patrons of what appeared to be crack cocaine. Investigator Campbell walked over to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase ten (10) pieces of crack cocaine from Spider. Approximately 200 zip-lock packets of suspected crack cocaine were positioned in front of Spider. Spider motioned for Campbell" to pick them out." Campbell then picked out ten (10) packets in exchange for $50.00 which he gave to Spider. This transaction occurred in plain view of other individuals on the licensed premises. Before leaving Spider went behind the bar, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, placed it inside his pants and exited the premises. On September 29, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The bartender on duty was Josephine. Shortly after the investigators arrived, Spider appeared on the premises and went behind the bar where he took a pistol from inside his pants and placed it under the bar counter. Spider then removed a brown paper bag from under the bar counter and went to the D.J. s booth. Investigator Thompson proceeded to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine. Spider reached into the bag and gave Investigator Thompson two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Investigator Campbell approached an unknown black male who Campbell had seen selling narcotics on prior occasions. Campbell made inquiries relative to the purchase of cocaine and the unknown black male indicated that he could sell Campbell crack cocaine. The unknown male then gave two five dollar ($5.00) pieces of crack cocaine to Investigator Campbell in exchange for $10.00. This transaction took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Shortly after the investigators arrived, they observed Spider on the premises selling crack cocaine to patrons from the D.J.'s booth. Subsequently, Investigator Thompson went to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine. In response thereto, Spider left the licensed premises and proceeded to a pickup truck parked outside. Spider then retrieved a brown paper bag from the vehicle, returned to Investigator Thompson and handed him twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent licensee admitted to being an absentee owner. The Respondent did not maintain payroll, employment or other pertinent business records. The licensee was aware that drugs were a major problem in the area surrounding the premises and that drug transactions were known to take place immediately outside of the licensed premises. The licensee did nothing to prevent the incursion of narcotics trafficking onto the licensed premises. The licensee, CeoIa Cutliff, is engaged to Arthur Dorsey. Ms. Cutliff gave Mr. Dorsey a key to the premises and knew or should have known that he was operating in the capacity of a manager on the licensed premises. Josephine, the bartender generally on duty, referred to Mr. Dorsey as "boss man" and Mr. Dorsey directed her activities in the licensed premises. Mr. Dorsey a/k/a Spider utilized the licensed premises as if they were his own and was operating in the capacity of a manager at the Club Night Shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's beverage license 23-06844, Series 2-COP, located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4482 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 2. (Petitioner has two paragraphs numbered 2) Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10, 11 & 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted). COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Scott Boundy, Esquire 901 E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Daniel Bosanko Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its director, stockholder or corporate officer, namely: Carl Bilotti, related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on July 15 and 18, 1981; August 20, 1981; and September 9 and 20, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee namely: "Anne," related to the possession of the controlled substance cocaine on August 22 and 28, 1981. Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Anne," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 23, 1981, and September 4, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Sandy," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance methaqualone on July 19 and 25, 1981, and the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 14, 22 and 23, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Eve," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance diazepam on July 23, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Gina," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance diazepam on July 25, 1981, two (2) incidents. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Ivy " related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 14, 1981. Count VIII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Shayne," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on July 25, 1981. Count IX to the Administrative Complaint alleges that between July 15, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants, employees, manager, corporate officer and stockholder, maintained a place, to wit: the licensed premises, at 2095 best Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Florida, which place was used for keeping or selling of controlled substances, namely: cocaine, methaqualone and diazepam, in violation of Subsection 893.13(2)(a) 5; Florida Statutes, within the meaning of Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count X to the Administrative Complaint alleges that between July 15, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, through its agents, servants, employees, manager, corporate officer and stockholder, kept or maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises, to wit: maintaining a building or place which is used for the illegal keeping, selling or delivering of controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c) , Florida Statutes. Count XI to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about July 25, 1981, an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, one Gina, while engaged as a dancer, unlawfully offered to commit prostitution, in violation of Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, causing a violation on the part of the Respondent of Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida .Statutes. Count XII to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about October 2, 1981, an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, namely: Cathryne Edmondson, possessed a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana, on the licensed premises, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a) Florida Statutes, causing a violation of Subsection 561.29 (1)(a) , Florida Statutes. Count XIII to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about December 2, 1981, a director, stockholder or corporate officer, namely: Carl Bilotti, corporate vice-president and 50 percent stockholder, pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, on five (5) counts of violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, sale of controlled substances, namely: cocaine, a felony, and that the felony conviction impairs qualifications of the Respondent to obtain and continue holding an alcoholic beverage license under Subsection 561.15(3), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 56l.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner had served an Administrative Complaint on the Respondent, which Administrative Complaint contained the Counts as set forth in the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. Subsequent to that time, the Respondent, in the person of counsel, requested a formal Subsection 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes, hearing and the formal hearing was conducted on January 6, 1982. As indicated by correspondence from former counsel for the Respondent to counsel for the Petitioner dated December 15, 1901, Respondent's counsel withdrew from the case. This withdrawal of counsel postdated a Notice of Hearing setting forth January 6, 1982, as the date for hearing and a separate Order of November 24, 1981, which identified January 6, 1982, a the date for hearing. Notwithstanding the Notice and separate Order identifying January 6, 1982, as the hearing date, the Respondent, by and through its attorney or other authorized representative, did not attend the formal hearing. Although the Respondent was not in attendance, the hearing was conducted in view of the continuing request for hearing, which has never been withdrawn. The Petitioner is a governmental agency in the State of Florida, which has, among other duties, the licensure of the several alcoholic beverage license holders in the State of Florida, and the requirement to discipline those beverage license holders who have violated the terms and conditions of their licensure. The Respondent Carl and Mike, Inc., is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Petitioner. The Respondent trades as the Raw Hide Bar at a licensed premises at 2095 West Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Dade County, Florida. On July 15, 1981, at approximately 9:45 P.M., Beverage Officer L. J. Terminello, and a confidential informant, who was assisting Officer Terminello, entered the licensed premises in undercover capacities to continue an investigation which had begun on July 12, 1981. (The Beverage Officer and confidential informant had been in the licensed premises on that former date for purposes of conducting a narcotics investigation.) On this occasion, the investigative purpose was to purchase narcotics. Terminello and the informant took a seat at the bar and waited for the appearance of Carl N. Bilotti, the vice-president of the Respondent and 50 shareholder. It was the intention of Terminello to attempt to purchase narcotics from Bilotti. At 10:50 P.M. Bilotti had not arrived at the licensed premises and Terminello decided to leave; however, when he reached the front door, Bilotti was entering and Bilotti spoke to the confidential informant in the parking lot area of the licensed premises. The confidential informant, in the course of that conversation, asked Bilotti if, "we could get any coke," meaning Terminello and the confidential informant were interested in purchasing cocaine. Bilotti responded by stating, "Sure, no problem. Wait here a minute, I'll be right back." Bilotti then entered the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later and handed the confidential informant a piece of aluminum foil which was folded and the confidential informant handed this item to Terminello. Terminello opened the package and noted a quantity of white powder. Terminello asked Bilotti, "how much" and Bilotti stated, "anything close to $70.00." Terminello paid Bilotti $70.00 in United States currency and following a short conversation, departed the area of the licensed premises. The white powder in question was in fact cocaine. Terminello and the confidential informant returned to the licensed premises on July 18, 1981, at approximately 12:15 A.M. Terminello approached Carl Bilotti who was standing at the end of the bar area next to a cash register. Terminello asked Bilotti if he had any "stuff," referring to cocaine. Bilotti answered "sure" and indicated that the cost for the cocaine would be $70.00. Terminello agreed to the price, telling Bilotti that he would meet him in the mens room for purposes of the exchange of drugs and money. At approximately 12:20 A.M., while located in the mens rest room of the licensed premises, Terminello paid Bilotti $70.00 in United States currency and Bilotti gave Terminello a folded piece of white paper which Terminello could see contained white powder. Shortly thereafter, Terminello and the confidential informant exited the licensed premises. The white powder which had been purchased was analyzed and revealed the presence of cocaine. On July 19, 1981, at around 11:00 P.M., Officer Terminello returned to the licensed premises. While in the licensed premises he spoke with Sandra McQuire, a person that he had met on July 12, 1981. On July 12, 1981, McQuire had been employed as a cocktail waitress on the licensed premises and Terminello had been advised by the confidential informant that McQuire had delivered ten (10) methaqualone tablets to the confidential informant on that date. On that date, July 19, 1981, Terminello told employee McQuire that he wanted to purchase ten (10) more "ludes, meaning methaqualone. At around 11:20 P.M., while Terminello was sitting at the bar, McQuire walked by and handed him a napkin containing ten (10) white tablets. A few minutes later, Terminello handed McQuire $30.00 in U.S. currency in payment for the white tablets. Terminello then left the licensed premises at approximately 11:40 P.M. The ten (10) tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be methaqualone. On July 23, 1981, at approximately 12:30 A.M., Officer Terminello and the confidential informant entered the licensed premises. Terminello and the confidential informant took a seat at the bar, where shortly afterwards a conversation ensued with an employee/dancer who identified herself as "Eve" and was later determined to be one Eve Mary Carroll. Carroll and the confidential informant had been acquainted prior to this time. During the course of the conversation, Terminello asked Carroll if she knew where he could get some "good ludes." This refers again to methaqualone. Carroll told him that she was "holding," meaning that she had some in her possession. She asked Terminello to pay her $4.00 for each tablet. She stated that the price was higher because they were "pure methaqualone tablets" and that they would "really do a job." Terminello told Carroll that he would purchase three (3) tablets and handed her $12.00 in U.S. currency. A few moments beyond this time, at around 12:45 A.M., Carroll handed Terminello three (3) tablets, each individually wrapped in aluminum foil, which tablets Terminello placed in his pocket. The suspect methaqualone tablets were later determined to be diazepam. On the same date, July 23, 1981, Terminello observed Carl Bilotti enter the licensed premises at around 1:00 A.M. In the course of a conversation that ensued, Bilotti told Terminello he could sell Terminello some cocaine, but that the transaction would have to occur later, in that Bilotti had to leave the licensed premises. Terminello waited until 2:30 A.M. and Bilotti never returned. On July 25, 1981, at approximately 12:00 A.M., Terminello and the confidential informant went back to the licensed premises. Over the next hour and a half, Terminello talked to Carl Bilotti and employee Sandra McQuire about purchasing narcotics; however, neither of those persons were able to deliver narcotics at that time. On that same date, Terminello and the confidential informant did speak with a dancer/employee in the licensed premises who was identified as "Gina" and this individual indicated that she had some "ludes" for sale, meaning methaqualone, that she would sell for $3.00 each. Terminello indicated that he would like to purchase five (5) tablets and they walked out the front door of the premises and Terminello gave her $15.00 in U.S. currency, in return for five (5) white tablets which were marked "Lemon 714." Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be diazepam. At around 2:45 A.M. on July 25, 1981, while in the bar area, Terminello and the confidential informant spoke to an individual, a male, who was known as "Frenchie" later identified to be one Laurent E. Duval, who was in the company of a dancer employed in the licensed premises whose name was "Shayne" later identified to be Sharon K. Hicks. In the presence of Hicks, Terminello and Duval negotiated for the sale of a quantity of cocaine for the amount of $75.00. Duval also indicated that he had to be careful because he had a stolen car, was carrying a firearm and had recently been placed on probation by Circuit Court for narcotics and firearms charges. Duval told Terminello that the narcotics arrangement would have to be consummated in the parking lot of the licensed premises in view of the fact that too many people he did not know were in the bar. Terminello and the confidential informant exited the licensed premises at around 3:00 A.M. in the company of Duval and Hicks. Duval took a seat on the driver's side of an automobile in the parking lot and Hicks sat in the front passenger side seat. Duval handed Terminello a large plastic bag. containing a quantity of white powder which was suspect cocaine. Terminello started to hand Duval $75.00 in U.S. currency but Duval refused to take it, telling Terminello to hand the money to Hicks. Hicks had been observing this transaction and agreed to take the money and did accept the $75.00 in U.S. currency. The suspected cocaine was later revealed to be cocaine. Terminello next returned to the licensed premises on July 25, 1981, at around 9:30 P.M. At that time he was in the presence of the confidential informant. Terminello and the confidential informant took a seat at the bar and were approached by a dancer/employee who had earlier been identified as "Gina." There had been a prior telephone negotiation between the confidential informant and "Gina" for the purchase of five (5) "ludes," methaqualone, and in keeping with that arrangement, "Gina" handed Terminello a white napkin which contained five (5) white tablets. Terminello in turn gave "Gina" $15.00 in U.S. currency. Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be diazepam. On the same evening, i.e., July 25, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., the cocktail waitress, Sandra McQuire, approached Terminello and stated that she had five (5) methaqualone tablets that Terminello had asked for on the prior evening. She handed him a zip-lock plastic bag containing five (5) white tablets marked "Lemon 714." Shortly after this time, Terminello gave McQuire $15.00 in U.S. currency to pay for the tablets. Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be methaqualone. At around 10:15 P.M. on July 25, 1981, the dancer/ employee "Gina" approached Terminello while he was seated at the bar and advised him that if he "got rid of" his "old lady" and returned about 4:00 A.M. to the premises that she, "Gina," would show him a good time by "fucking his brain out" for $50.00. Terminello acknowledged this offer. On August 3, 1981, at approximately 10:30 P.M., Terminello and the confidential informant returned to the licensed premises. At that time, Terminello entered into a conversation with Carl Bilotti on the subject of narcotics; however, Bilotti indicated that he was unable to procure cocaine at that time. Bilotti did state that he expected a delivery soon and that Terminello should wait a while. Nothing had transpired by 11:45 P.M. concerning the narcotics and Terminello and the confidential informant left the licensed premises. On August 14, 1981, at approximately 10:45 P.M., Terminello and the confidential informant went back to the licensed premises and upon entry took a seat at the bar where they were greeted by the cocktail waitress Sandra McQuire. Terminello asked McQuire if there were any "ludes" around, meaning methaqualone, and McQuire answered in the negative, but she did indicate that there was some "toot," meaning cocaine available for $70.00 a gram if Terminello was interested. Terminello advised McQuire that he was interested and removed $70.. 00 in U.S. currency from his wallet, wrapped it in a napkin and handed it to McQuire. She then stated that she would be back in a few moments. After several moments, McQuire signaled Terminello to walk over to the opposite side of the bar where she was fixing drinks. She then made a comment about the good quality of the "stuff." While Terminello was talking to McQuire, another employee, a dancer in the licensed premises identified as "Ivy" later shown to be one Julie Ann Schwartz, approached Terminello and handed him a plastic zip- lock bag containing white powder. She told Terminello "here is a present from Sandy." Terminello accepted the material. Schwartz then asked Terminello if she could "do a line," referring to the ingestion of cocaine. In view of the circumstances, Terminello did allow Schwartz to taste the cocaine. Schwartz did this by opening the packet in plain view at the bar area and placing her finger into the container and then tasting the substance that adhered to her finger. She then handed the plastic bag back to Terminello and said "you are going to enjoy this. That's good stuff." These matters transpired in the presence of McQuire. The white powder was subsequently analyzed and revealed to be cocaine. On August 22, 1981, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Terminello returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry to the licensed premises, Terminello was greeted by Carl Bilotti who appeared to be leaving the bar at that time. Bilotti told Terminello he could be back in about one hour if Terminello wanted to wait for purposes of purchasing cocaine. Terminello told him he would wait. Following his conversation with Bilotti, Terminello spoke with the cocktail waitress Sandra McQuire asking her if there was any "toot" around, meaning cocaine. McQuire indicated that there was and it would cost $70.00. Terminello followed McQuire into the hallway outside the ladies' room where he handed her a hundred dollar bill and she handed him a plastic wrapped package containing white powder. A few minutes later, Terminello was sitting at the bar when McQuire returned and laid $30.00 in U.S. currency before Terminello stating "thank you very much." This material in the plastic bag which had been provided to Terminello by McQuire was subsequently determined to be cocaine. Terminello was still in the bar area at around 12:30 A.M. on August 23, 1981, and entered into a conversation with the manager of the licensed premises identified a "Anne" later shown to be Anne R. Milotta, also known as Ann Bilotti, the sister of Carl Bilotti. Terminello told Milotta that he felt that her brother Carl Bilotti was inconsiderate in that Terminello had planned to purchase cocaine from Bilotti that night and Bilotti had not come back to the premises. Milotta agreed with Terminello and told him that he could sit in the manager's office with her to have a drink and to wait for her brother to return. Milotta and Terminello went to the manager's office. While in that office, ,Milotta answered the telephone, gave directions to employees, answered questions, was observed to have the keys to the office, and at times was seen tending bar. These managerial activities were further substantiated on a later date based upon Terminello's procurement of a copy of an application which Milotta had made with the City of Hialeah, Florida, for an identification card in which she had listed herself as the "owner-manager of the licensed premises." While in the office with Milotta, she told Terminello that it was too bad that her brother had not yet come back so that Terminello could purchase cocaine. Terminello, during this conversation, indicated to Milotta that he had purchased cocaine from Sandy McQuire, the cocktail waitress, and Milotta stated to Terminello "how 'bout turning me on to a line" and Terminello responded "OK." Terminello removed the cocaine he had received from McQuire and handed it to Milotta. She opened it and tapped out two one and one half inch long "lines" of cocaine on the desk in the office and handed the package back to Terminello. Terminello then watched Milotta ingest one of the lines through her nose using a plastic straw and he in turn simulated that activity. At around 1:15 A.M., on August 23, 1981, Terminello indicated to Milotta that, in view of the fact that Carl Bilotti was not going to appear, he would like to purchase another gram of cocaine to keep him supplied for the upcoming week. Milotta stated she would get McQuire and exited the office and called McQuire in, telling her that Terminello wanted to purchase another gram of cocaine. McQuire indicated that this would not be a problem and removed another packet similar to the first from a large plastic bag she kept on her person. This large bag appeared to have twenty (20) to thirty (30) similar type packets within it. Terminello removed a hundred dollar bill from his wallet and handed it to Milotta who in turn handed it to McQuire. McQuire then reached over Milotta and handed Terminello the packet. Shortly after this exchange, McQuire left the office and Milotta continued in general conversation both in the bar and office area until Terminello left the premises at approximately 1:50 A.M. The second package that McQuire gave to Terminello was subsequently determined to be cocaine. On August 28, 1981, at approximately 10:30 A.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises to continue the investigation. Upon entering the licensed premises he spoke with Carl Bilotti asking if he had any "toot," meaning cocaine. Bilotti stated that he did and that it would be the same price as usual, $70.00. A few minutes later, Bilotti walked up to Terminello who was sitting at the bar and handed him a plastic zip-lock bag containing white powder and Terminello gave him $70.00 in U.S. currency in exchange. The substance which Terminello had purchased from Bilotti was subsequently determined to be cocaine. A few minutes after the exchange of cocaine and currency, Anne Milotta approached Terminello in the bar area and invited him into the manager's office for a drink. When they entered the office, Milotta told Terminello that she had seen the transaction involving the sale of cocaine between Terminello and her brother and wanted to make sure that Terminello was satisfied with the "product." The conversation continued while Milotta intended her managerial duties of making schedules, and answering the telephone. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Milotta asked Terminello if she could "do a line" of his cocaine, meaning use the material. She indicated that she knew "this coke was as good as all the coke that Carl gets." Terminello complied with her request by handing her the plastic zip-lock bag that he had purchased from Carl Bilotti. She again placed two (2) "lines" of the cocaine on the desk and on this occasion used a twenty dollar bill which had been rolled up as a tool to ingest the cocaine in her nose. Terminello simulated the use of cocaine in her presence. Terminello then left the office and exited the licensed premises. On September 4, 1981, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises. When he entered the premises he spoke with Anne Milotta asking her if her brother had "any shit to sell," referring to cocaine. Milotta invited Terminello into her office indicating that her brother did not have cocaine for sale but that she did. Terminello told her that he wanted one (1) gram. She left the office and returned a few minutes later, at around 9:50 P.M., handing Terminello a piece of plastic wrapping containing white powder. Terminello handed her 580.00 in U.S. currency and she returned $5.00, stating that her price was $75.00. Subsequent analysis of the material which he had received from Milotta revealed the presence of cocaine. While in the office area, Milotta continued to perform managerial duties. As Terminello was preparing to leave the licensed premises on this date, Milotta approached him and gave him an additional $5.00 in U.S. currency stating that she had made a mistake and that a gram should only be $70.00 and that she did not want Terminello to think that she was "ripping him off." This discussion of money referred to the purchase of cocaine. On September 9, 1981, at around 10:10 P.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises. He took a seat at the bar and waited for the appearance of Carl Bilotti. Bilotti entered the licensed premises at around 10:25 P.M. and Terminello asked him if he was "holding any shit," referring to cocaine. Bilotti stated that he was and that it was the usual price of $70.00. Bilotti and Terminello then went to the manager's office. Bilotti left Terminello in that office, shortly thereafter and following this sequence, Terminello gave Bilotti $70.00 in U.S. currency while in the office in exchange for a white piece of paper folded in four parts which contained white, powder. The analysis of this white powder material revealed cocaine. Terminello and Bilotti stayed in the office for a few minutes discussing general topics and the possibility of a large narcotics purchase in the future. Bilotti told Terminello that he would be better off buying a quarter ounce of cocaine for $425.00 rather than one gram at a time for $70.00. Terminello then left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 P.M. On September 20, 1901, at approximately 12:15 A.M., Terminello returned to the licensed premises. He undertook a conversation with Carl Bilotti while standing near the outside of the front door. After a short conversation, Bilotti indicated that he had cocaine for sale. A few minutes later while inside the licensed premises, Bilotti waved Terminello into the manager's office where he removed a quantity of white powder from a large plastic bag and placed a small quantity of white powder into a piece of paper on the desk. He then folded the piece of paper and handed it to Terminello who handed Bilotti 570.00 in U.S. currency. This white powder was subsequently determined to be cocaine. At approximately 1:00 A.M., Terminello left the licensed premises. On September 26, 1981, at approximately 12:20 A.M., Terminello, while in the licensed premises, entered into a discussion with Carl Bilotti about a narcotics transaction involving the purchase of cocaine. Bilotti indicated that two (2) ounces of cocaine could be purchased for $1,700.00 an ounce and he stated that the safest place for the transaction to occur would be in the office at the licensed premises. On September 29, 1981, at around 11:15 P.M., Terminello and Carl Bilotti, while in the office at the licensed premises, confirmed a future purchase of two (2) ounces of cocaine. Bilotti explained to Terminello the packaging and adulterating procedures to be used in connection with selling the cocaine. On October 2, 1981, at approximately 12:45 A.M., in the office of the licensed premises, Anne Milotta told Terminello that she was aware of the pending large transaction for the purchase of cocaine between Terminello and Carl Bilotti and that her understanding was that the purchase was to occur later that evening. She further stated that due to her brother's unreliability she would also guarantee that two (2) ounces of cocaine would be in the office by 7:00 P.M. on October 2, 1981. On October 2, 1981, a search was made of the licensed premises in connection with a warrant issued by the Dade County Circuit Court. The search warrant was read to Dorothy Bilotti, a principal in the beverage license. During the course of the search, Cathryne Edmondson, one of the dancer/employees was found in possession of marijuana. On December 2, 1981, Carl Bilotti entered a plea of guilty to five (5) counts of sale of cocaine and five (5) counts of possession of cocaine. He was subsequently adjudicated guilty of the sale of cocaine and adjudication was withheld on the counts of possession of cocaine. These matters were in connection with a court case in the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida.
The Issue This case arises out of a notice to show cause served upon the Respondent by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco alleging that Beverage License No. 27-92 should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for five separate counts involving drug sales on the licensed premises. As a basis for its proof, Petitioner relied upon a stipulation entered into with the Respondent and a Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Case Report which was admitted without objection. Mr. Charles Andrews testified on behalf of himself as licensee. A copy of the notice to show cause was admitted as Joint Exhibit 1 and the Petitioner of foreign and had admitted without objection one exhibit, the case report of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Charles D. Andrews, trading as Odom's Bar, is the licensee of Beverage License No. 27-92, License Series 4-COP. The licensed premises is located on Highway 29 in Century, Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner and Respondent, having stipulated to the truth and accuracy of those facts alleged in the notice to show cause, and based upon that stipulation, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds those facts set forth in A through F of this paragraph: On May 24, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate the laws of the State of Florida by delivering a controlled substance, to wit: cannabis to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13 within Florida Statute 561.29. On June 14, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On June 17, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On July 11, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Actent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. A. The negotiations and discussions about the May 24, 1982, transaction occurred inside Odom's Bar and the delivery took place through the drive-in window located on the north side of the licensed premises. On June 14, 1982, Beverage Officer Blackman drove to the drive-in window and asked Johnny Andrews if he was holding any pot. Johnny Andrews stated he was holding a 35 cents bag. After a short discussion about possible purchase of a larger quantity, Officer Blackman purchased the bag of marijuana for $35.00. The plastic bag of marijuana was in a brown paper bag and was handed to Officer Blackman through the drive-in window. The delivery of the marijuana to Officer Blackman on June 17, 1982, also took place at the drive-in window. Johnny Andrews handed Blackman a brown paper bag containing a Miller and a plastic bag of marijuana. On July 11, 1982, Officer Blackman observed three patrons smoking a marijuana cigarette in Odom's Bar, and this activity was observed. by the barmaid on duty. No attempt was made to stop the activity. Officer Blackman was offered the marijuana cigarette and he pretended to smoke it. At this time, Johnny Andrews approached Officer Blackman and offered to 7 sell him some "acid" (LSD). Officer Blackman agreed and was instructed to drive around to the drive- in window. He did so and the delivery of the "acid" took place through the drive-in window. On August 5, 1982, Officer Blackman, after being in the licensed premises, drove up to the drive-in window where Johnny Andrews offered to sell him some "acid" (LSD) Officer Blackman agreed to purchase and agreed to return on August 6 to pick up the "acid". on august 6, 1982, Officer Blackman returned to the drive-in window where Andrews handed him a bag containing six hits of acid. At the time of the conversations and purchases on June 14, August 5, and August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews was on duty and working at Odom's Bar. Mr. Charles Andrews has owned Odom's Bar for the past five years and worked for the two previous owners. He began working at Odom's Bar 20 years ago. The bar is managed by Respondent and his wife. Johnny Andrews, referred to in the stipulation above, is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Andrews, and during the time period of the incidents set forth in Paragraph 1, was working as an employee at the bar. This was the first summer he had worked at the bar. He was working while he was home from college, and has not been allowed to work at the bar since August, 1982, when he was arrested. Generally, Johnny Andrews would relieve Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and they would leave the bar while he was working. The Respondent, Charles D. Andrews, had no knowledge of the drug transactions his son was involved in. Prior to the incidents in question, Odom's Bar was operated by Mr. and Mrs. Andrews with the help of four women whom they employed. Mr. Andrews had previously given instructions to his employees that they were not to allow drugs of any type to be used or sold on the premises. On the date of Johnny Andrews' arrest, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco thoroughly searched the licensed premises and found no drugs. The clientele of Odom's Bar is primarily middle- aged persons. Prior to the incidents described in Paragraph 1 above, the licensee, Charles Andrews, had had no other violations of the law or drug related problems at the licensed premises. Once Mr. and Mrs. Andrews were notified of the charges and arrest warrant for their son, they cooperated with the police and also aided them in completing their arrest of Johnny Andrews. Although the Respondent testified that he had cautioned his employees against drugs on the premises, there was no evidence that he took any steps to ensure that the premises were being properly supervised and legally operated in his absence. There was no arrangement or plan whereby the licensee monitored what was occurring at the licensed premises in his absence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Florida statute 561.29, imposing a civil penalty of $1,000,and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Mr. Howard N. Rasmussen Department of Business Director, Division of Alcoholic Regulation Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles D. Andrews Mr. Gary Rutledge Highway 29, Odom's Bar Secretary, Department of Business Century, Florida Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes pertaining to alcoholic beverage licenses, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Petitioner contends that Respondent violated the provisions of Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c) by condoning and/or negligently overlooking trafficking in illegal, controlled substances on his licensed premises. The Respondent contends that he took all reasonable steps to prevent any unlawful activities from occurring on his licensed premises, and that to the extent any unlawful activities were conducted on his licensed premises, he neither condoned nor negligently overlooked them.
Findings Of Fact Robert Pauley is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 60-1229, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is located at 4458 Purdy Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is operated under the name "The Treehouse Saloon". The Treehouse Saloon is a "topless bar". It offers so-called adult entertainment to members of the public as well as beer and wine for consumption on the premises. The entertainment consists of women who dance nude or semi- nude. The premises includes numerous tables and a bar where patrons sit, pool tables, restrooms, an office where the Respondent conducted business, a disc jockey's booth, and a dance floor where the women performed. The Treehouse Saloon has been closed since June 8, 1983, when the Petitioner issued an emergency suspension order and notice to show cause. During May and June, 1983, John T. Slavin, an agent employed with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, was acting in an undercover capacity. He took on the appearance and wore clothes compatible with the role of a member of a motorcycle gang. He had been directed to frequent topless lounges in Palm Beach County and to work undercover to determine if illegal drug activities or prostitution were occurring. On May 5, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse Saloon. During the evening, he made friends with "Duane" who was working in the saloon as a disc jockey. Slavin asked Duane about the prospects of purchasing cocaine. Duane told Slavin that that could be arranged and that it would cost $60 for three- fourths of a gram. Slavin gave Duane $60. Duane left the disc jockey area and approached one of the dancers whose name was "Barbara." Duane then returned to Slavin and advised him that the "product" was on the way. A short time later, Barbara approached Duane, then Duane brought a matchbox to Slavin. The matchbox contained a transparent plastic bag with white powder in it. After he left the bar, Slavin 7 field-tested the "product" then turned it over to a chemist employed with the Sheriff's Department. The "product" was cocaine. The sale was made at approximately 2:00 a.m. On or about May 12, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse lounge at approximately 11:45 p.m. He saw Duane and asked whether Duane was "playing oldies." This was a signal meaning that Slavin wished to purchase more cocaine. Duane said that he was "playing oldies nightly" and asked Slavin how much he wanted. Slavin handed Duane $60. A short time later, Duane delivered a cigarette pack to Slavin and told Slavin that a cigarette was missing. Slavin found two transparent bags containing a white powder inside the cigarette pack. Slavin later field-tested the contents and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 13, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 11:30 p.m. Shortly after mid- night on May 14, he approached Duane's booth and asked if they could do business. Duane said "yes," but that it would take a little longer for the delivery due to a special event (a "banana eating contest") that was being presented. Slavin gave Duane $60 which Duane put in his pocket. Later that morning, Duane put a pack of matches in Slavin's pocket. Slavin went to the men's room and found two plastic bags with a white powder inside. He later field-tested the contents then delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 18, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 10:30 p.m. He saw Duane at the bar and asked him why he was not in the disc jockey's booth. Duane indicated that he was squabbling with the management and would be taking some time off. Duane asked Slavin if he was interested in "some white" which is a "street name" for cocaine. Slavin asked if Duane could get him a gram. Duane said that he could. Slavin gave Duane $80. Later, Duane handed Slavin an aspirin tin. There were two small bags of white powder inside the tin. Slavin later field tested the contents then delivered them to a chemist. The product was cocaine. On this occasion, Duane said that he would be away for a while. Slavin asked Duane who could supply "coke" (cocaine) in Duane's absence. Duane named three dancers: "Linda," "Doree," and "Barbara." Although Duane was not in the disc jockey's booth on that occasion, he did appear to be directing other employees, including dancers, in their activities. On or about May 19, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 1:00 a.m. He talked to a dancer called "Doree." Doree's actual name is Diana Donnell. Since then, she has been arrested. Slavin asked Doree if she could get him some "coke." She told Slavin that it would cost $40 for a half gram. Slavin asked if he could buy a full gram, and she said "yes." Doree then performed as a dancer, after which Slavin gave her $80. At that time, he was standing right next to the dance floor. A short time later, Doree returned with two small plastic bags which contained a white powder. Later, Slavin field-tested the powder and turned it over to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 25, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon shortly after noon. He sat at the bar next to a dancer whose name was "Samantha." Slavin asked her where Doree was, and was told that Doree was not working there anymore. Slavin asked Samantha if she could help him buy a half gram of cocaine. She said "yes" and that it would cost $40. Slavin placed $40 on the bar between them. She placed a cigarette pack on the bar and told him that there was a half gram inside. She took the money. The witness examined the contents of the cigarette pack, removed a plastic bag which contained a white substance, and returned the cigarettes to Samantha. Samantha told Slavin that he could buy from her in the future. Later, Slavin field-tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. Later in the day on May 25, 1983, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He saw Samantha and asked her if he could buy another half gram. She told him it would cost $40. Slavin gave her $40 and she went into the dressing room that was on the premises. When she came out, she gave him a transparent package that had white powder inside. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On May 31, 1983, at approximately 10:45 p.m. Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He talked to a dancer known as "Mama She She." Slavin asked if Samantha was available and was told that she was not there. Maid She She, whose actual name is Michelle West, said that she had "done a line of coke" earlier which was "dirty," but had given her a "good high." She told Slavin that a half gram would cost $40. Shortly after midnight, Slavin gave her $40. He did not receive anything from Mama She She until approximately 3:50 a.m. On several occasions in the interim, Slavin talked to Mama She She about it, but she indicated she was having some difficulty obtaining the cocaine. Eventually, she gave him a clear bag that had powder inside. She told Slavin that she would be working the next day (June 2) from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and that the witness could buy more then. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents of the bag and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about June 2, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 3:30 p.m. He saw Mama She She and talked to her. She asked him if he was interested in "a half or a whole." He said "A half." She returned a bit later and said that there was nothing there then, but that if he would wait, she could probably get it. Later, she told Slavin that she was a bit reluctant to sell to him because he had not given her a "line" from his purchases. Slavin told Mama She She that he was buying it for friend to whom he owed money. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Mama She She still had not delivered anything to Slavin. She asked if he could drive her home, which he agreed to do. As they were leaving, another dancer, "Barbie," came in. Barbie asked Slavin if he recognized her. She told him that he had gotten cocaine from her through Duane in the past. Slavin asked if he could get a half gram, and Barbie said "yes." Slavin then took Mama She She home and returned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Barbie gave him a plastic bag with white powder inside. Slavin later field- tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. All of the women that Slavin dealt with at the Treehouse Saloon were dancers. They were either scantily clad or nude. They would dance for three songs on the dance floor, and customers would put money in their garter belts. A bartender and a bouncer were also present at the saloon. From time to time, a bartender or the disc jockey would tell a dancer it was her turn. The Respondent had hired the dancers as "independent contractors." Whatever their status at the Treehouse Saloon, the dancers were subject to direction from the Respondent or his managers. A list of rules for dancers provided, among other things, that no hard liquor or drugs were allowed on the premises and that the first offense would result in termination. The dancers were required to sign an "independent contractor agreement." The contract provided that dancers would not be considered an agent or employee of the saloon for any purpose. Despite these provisions, the dancers were clearly subject to direction by the bartender or disc jockey at the saloon. In addition, they were required to wait on tables, to circulate among customers, to work their complete shifts, to tip the bartender, and to perform other functions. They were clearly subject to the supervision and control of the Respondent, the bartender, or the disc jockey. When Slavin made the cocaine purchases described above, he communicated with Duane or the dancers in a normal conversational tone. A normal conversational tone in the Treehouse Saloon would he somewhat loud because loud music was constantly playing. The transactions were made in a somewhat secretive manner. A person who was carefully observing or monitoring the premises, however, would necessarily have been suspicious of Slavin, Duane, and the dancers. The Respondent did post rules in various locations of the Treehouse Saloon which provided that illicit drugs were not allowed. His dancers' rules provided to the same effect. Other than that, it does not appear that the Respondent took any steps to properly monitor his premises to assure that such activities were not occurring. Given the number of transactions and the nature of the transactions undertaken by Slavin, the transactions would have been observed by a manager who was reasonably observing and monitoring the premises. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent was directly involved in any drug trafficking or that he condoned it. The evidence does, however, establish that he was negligent in not properly monitoring the licensed premises to assure that illegal activities were not being undertaken there.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause and suspending his beverage license for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 14 day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Albert R. Wilber, Jr., Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondents' beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting their licensed premises to be used for the purpose of prostitution and for gaining profit from that prostitution. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses, Beverly Fraley, Alfred Stone, and Raphael Grulau. The Respondents presented no evidence. The Petitioner offered and had admitted over the objection of the Respondent, one tape recording of conversations which occurred inside the licensed premises as a part of the undercover investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as being unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Katherine J. and Guy H. Sutton were the holders of a valid, current beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. This license was issued to a licensed premises called Guy's Tavern located on Highway 301, South, in Riverview, Florida. On May 12, 1983, Detective Beverly Fraley of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity. On this particular evening, Detective Fraley was accompanied by two other detectives of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in a backup capacity. Prior to entering the licensed premises, Detective Fraley was fitted with a body bug for the purpose of recording any conversations that she might have in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation. When Officer Fraley arrived, the two backup detectives were inside the licensed premises shooting pool. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Fraley went to the bar and ordered a drink. After obtaining her drink, she was approached by a white male, who called himself "Stogie." While talking with Stogie, another white male, who called himself "Turkey" approached Officer Fraley from behind and placed his arms around her. She had never met Turkey before. Officer Fraley pushed Turkey away and said "Keep your hands off the merchandise." Shortly after her encounter with Turkey, Officer Fraley began shooting pool with Stogie and the two undercover detectives. After a short time, she left the licensed premises with Detective Grulau and after a few minutes the two of them reentered the licensed premises. After reentering, Officer Fraley went to the ladies' rest room and when she came out, she was called over to the bar area by the owner, Guy Sutton, who was behind the bar. As Officer Fraley approached the bar, Mr. Sutton stated, "If you're going to fuck here you've got to pay me." Officer Fraley asked what he meant and he told her that she would have to pay him $5.00 for every trick" she took out of the bar. "Trick" is a slang or street term used to describe an act of prostitution. Mr. Sutton then identified himself as the owner and said that the other women in the bar also paid. Officer Fraley then gave Mr. Sutton a $5 bill. After paying Mr. Sutton, Officer Fraley turned to the bartender, Irene Springer, who was present during this conversation and asked if in fact the other women in the bar were required to pay. Irene Springer stated that the other women in the bar did in fact have to pay $5.00 per trick and a group of white females sitting at a table near the bar responded, "That's right honey." Later that evening, Officer Fraley left with the other undercover detective. When they returned, Guy Sutton was in the pool room area. Officer Fraley intentionally did not go over to Sutton. Shortly after she returned, Sutton came over to her and told her that she owed him another $5.00. He then told her that she would be better off paying him $25.00 per week rather than $5.00 per trick. He also stated that she had the potential to make $300 or $400 per week in his place. Guy's Tavern has a reputation in the community as a bar where prostitutes can be picked up.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondents' beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 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 Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Sweet's Lounge, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, Series 2-COP, for the location of Sweet's Lounge, 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges in this case. On April 24, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva drove his automobile to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He was approached by a male who asked what he wanted, and Oliva responded that he wanted "Boy," a street name for heroin. The male answered that he did not have any. Another male approached Oliva, who again indicated that he wanted some "Boy". Oliva observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge. Beverage Investigator Alphonso Junious was inside the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge and observed the entire transaction with Oliva. He observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge and approach a female patron known as Ramona, who handed the male a tinfoil package. The male returned to Investigator Oliva and exchanged the tinfoil package for $20.00. The male then reentered Sweet's Lounge and gave the $20.00 to Ramona. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva returned to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He discussed the purchase of some "Boy" from an individual named William Rainey. Rainey went inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge and returned with a tinfoil package which he delivered to Oliva in exchange for $20.00. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Investigator Junious returned to the premises of Sweet's Lounge. The on-duty barmaid, Beatrice, left the premises for a short time and asked a female, later identified as the barmaid Linda, who was sitting at the end of the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette, to watch the bar until Beatrice returned. Beatrice said nothing to Linda about the marijuana cigarette. Linda walked behind the bar and continued smoking the marijuana cigarette while performing bartending duties. When Beatrice re-entered the premises, Ramona was standing in the doorway handing a tinfoil package to a male in the view of Beatrice. Junious entered into conversation with Ramona and, during the conversation, Ramona delivered a small tinfoil package to an unknown male patron. Investigator Reylius Thompson was also inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge on April 25, 1985. He observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, which he was able to identify through their appearance, smell, and the manner of smoking. On May 1, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. They observed the bartender Beatrice seated at the bar counter with two male patrons who were smoking a marijuana cigarette. After the bartender Linda came on duty, the officers observed her remove a marijuana cigarette from her purse and begin to smoke it behind the bar counter. Junious asked Linda for change for a $20.00 bill so he could buy cocaine. Linda asked what Junious wanted, and he told her a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse behind the counter and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. While Investigator Thompson was seated at the bar on May 1, 1985, he also asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda again removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse and delivered it to Thompson in exchange for $10.00. On May 3, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. While Beatrice was bartender, Junious observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked to purchase $10.00 piece of cocaine from her. Linda requested Beatrice to hand her her purse, from which she removed a tinfoil package of cocaine. Junious observed a plastic bag containing numerous tinfoil packages inside of Linda's purse. Linda sold the package of cocaine to Junious for $10.00 While Investigator Thompson was sitting at the bar on May 3, 1985, he asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda asked Beatrice to pass her purse to her from behind the bar. Beatrice handed the purse to Linda and Linda took out a tinfoil package of cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00 On May 8, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. While the investigators were seated at the bar counter, they observed three male patrons also seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Beatrice, the bartender. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked her for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed her purse from behind the bar, removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. Later that evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. She again removed a tinfoil packet containing cocaine from her purse and sold the cocaine to Thompson. ll. On May 10, 1985, Investigators Junious, Thompson and McKeithen went to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine, and she replied that she only had rocks. Junious agreed to purchase the rocks and received a tinfoil package of cocaine from Linda, which she had removed from her purse behind the bar. Later that same evening, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine. She removed from her purse a tinfoil package containing cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. That same evening Investigator Thompson observed a male disc jockey smoking marijuana in the presence of patrons and passing the marijuana cigarette to some of the patrons. On May 14, 1985, Investigators Thompson and McKeithen returned to Sweet's Lounge. Thompson observed four patrons seated at a table cutting a white powder and snorting it from the top of the table. He also observed Ramona and a male patron, while seated at the bar, snort a white powder through an empty cigarette paper tube in view of the bartender Beatrice. On May 15, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda if she had any cocaine, and she responded that she did but Junious would have to wait until she served a customer. After serving a customer, Linda sold Junious a small tinfoil package containing cocaine for 510.00. Junious also observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, sniffing white powder, and removing tobacco from regular cigarettes, inserting white powder into the cigarettes, and smoking same. On that same date, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for cocaine. She replied that she had rock or powder cocaine and Thompson ordered rock. Linda walked into the package store portion of the lounge and returned shortly to Thompson, handing him a tinfoil package containing a small rock of cocaine in exchange for $10.00. On that same date Thompson observed Ramona using an empty cigarette paper tube to snort a white powder. On May 22, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson entered the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. The officers observed patrons seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of bartender Beatrice. The officers also observed Ramona seated at a table with several male patrons, all of whom were snorting a white powder from the table top and smoking a white powder in cigarettes. On May 29, 1985, Investigator Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. He observed Linda smoking a marijuana cigarette behind the bar counter and observed Ramona sitting on the west side of the premises with a quantity of white powder on the table. Thompson approached Ramona, sat down next to her, and began to talk to her about cocaine. While Thompson was seated with Ramona another female patron smoked a marijuana cigarette. Later that same evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for cocaine and she responded that she had rock or powder. He ordered powder and Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. On the majority of the occasions described above when the investigators were inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge, there was a pervasive odor of marijuana smoke throughout the entire premises. The white powder which was being sniffed by patrons on the licensed premises at the various times described above was cocaine. In brief summary, the following relevant events took place at the licensed premises during the period of the investigation: 4/24/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance. 4/25/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and a patron delivered two small tinfoil packages to other patrons, and several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes. 5/01/85: Two patrons smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/03/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/08/85: Three patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in immediate presence of an employee, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/10/85: A disc jockey smoked marijuana and shared it with patrons, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/14/85: Six patrons sniffed cocaine; two did so in immediate presence of an employee. 5/15/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana and sniffed cocaine, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/22/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in the immediate presence of an employee and several patrons sniffed cocaine. 5/24/85: A patron had cocaine in open view on a table, a patron smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee on duty smoked a marijuana cigarette, and an employee made one sale of cocaine. Mr. Ebbie Sweet was never on the licensed premises on any of the occasions described above when the investigators were on the licensed premises. At all times material to this case, Mr. Andrew Johnson has been the manager of Sweet's Lounge. The owner, Mr. Ebbie Sweet, has given the manager various instructions about the operation of the premises. The instructions include: (a) keep the premises clean, (b) keep drugs out of the premises, (c) tell all employees to do the same, (d) put up signs about what can and cannot be done on the premises [including a sign reading "No Drugs Allowed"], (e) post the DABT flyer, and (f) put a "no loitering" sign outside the premises. The "no loitering" sign has not worked very well. When Mr. Andrew Johnson is on the premises he spends most of his time in the package store portion of the premises and very little of his time in the bar portion. On one occasion prior to the events described above, the Dania Police Department told Mr. Andrew Johnson there was a drug problem in Sweet's Lounge. He told them to come in anytime they wanted to and to arrest anyone they wanted to. Mr. Johnson did not change any procedures at Sweet's Lounge after the Dania Police Department told him about drug problems. Mr. Andrew Johnson knows Ramona. He has never seen her buy or use drugs, but he has heard that she is suspected of being a drug user. Ramona was a frequent visitor at Sweet's Lounge. Mr. Ebbie Sweet is the president of and the principal functionary of Sweet's Lounge, Inc. A sister and a nephew of Mr. Sweet also have some nominal connection to the corporation, but neither of them is active in running the licensed business. Mr. Ebbie Sweet enjoys an excellent reputation in his community. He is active in community affairs and has engaged in various charitable activities for the betterment of his community. It has always been his desire to run a reputable business and if he had known what was going on inside the lounge he would have fired those involved and would have closed the place up himself. In sum: Mr. Ebbie Sweet appears to be a good citizen who was trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, for both him and the community, he wasn't trying quite hard enough. Some time ago Mr. Ebbie Sweet's wife passed away. As a result of that misfortune Mr. Sweet slowed down a lot and became less active in many things, including the amount of time and energy he devoted to the licensed business. He had at one time visited the licensed premises on a regular basis, but during the past ten months he only made a couple of trips a month to the licensed premises, and those were primarily to check on the inventory. During the past ten months he has hardly ever visited the licensed premises after dark. Mr. Sweet was relying on Mr. Andrew Johnson to manage things for him at the licensed premises even though he knew that Mr. Johnson was not the most reliable of managers. As Mr. Sweet put it, Mr. Johnson "has a few faults." Some years ago Mr. Sweet had an alcoholic beverage quota license which permitted him to sell all types of alcoholic beverages at Sweet's Lounge. When he had that license he had written instructions for his employees, he had doormen, and he had security guards. Since he sold the quota license and obtained his present license (which is limited to beer and wine sales), he has not had written instructions for his employees, he has not had doormen, and he has not had security guards. Mr. Sweet does not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees. He has thought about hiring undercover people to patrol the premises, but has never done anything about it. The area of town in which Sweet's Lounge is located is one in which controlled substances are readily obtainable. Sweet's Lounge has had a recurring problem with undesirable people loitering in front of the lounge, people Mr. Sweet described as "hoodlums." All of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used by patrons inside the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. None of the employees took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the use of controlled substances by patrons. The foregoing findings of fact include the majority of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner. They do not, however, include any proposed findings based solely on the testimony of Investigator McKeithen. Some of the proposed findings based on McKeithen's testimony are irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Other proposed findings based solely on McKeithen's testimony are rejected because much of her testimony was neither persuasive nor convincing. While I have no doubts at all about her candor, honesty, or integrity, I have certain doubts about her attention to detail and her ability to recall and describe with accuracy events that took place in her presence. In making the finding that the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises were aware of the extensive use of drugs by patrons, I have not overlooked the testimony of the employees denying such knowledge. I find the denials to be unworthy of belief in light of all the other evidence in the record.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, series 2-COP issued to Sweet's Lounge, Inc., for the premises located at 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chesley V. Morton, Esquire 604 Southeast Sixth Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Boyd's Service, Inc., was under the control and operation of its owner, Leslie Boyd. Respondent holds Alcoholic Beverage license no. 62-03664, series 2-APS, for a premises known as Boyds Service located at 1500 22nd Street South in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Commencing on or about January 12, 1990, Petitioner, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, engaged in a cooperative effort with the St. Petersburg Police Department by conducting a "sting" investigation of eight businesses in the south St. Petersburg area to determine if the owners of such businesses were trafficking in stolen property. Investigators Craig Parsons, Ira McQueen, Priscilla Turner, and David Henry, all employees of Petitioner and Detectives Glen Henry, Luke Williams, Johnny Harris, Tom Kewin, and Rod Adams of the St. Petersburg Police Department participated in the sting investigation. On or about January 12, 1990, Detective Harris, while monitored by Investigator Parsons and Detective Henry, entered Respondent's licensed premises in an undercover capacity as part of the sting investigation and Detective Harris discussed with Respondent his desire to purchase property that Detective Harris asserted was stolen, to wit, several cartons of "Kool Kings" cigarettes. Respondent expressed a willingness to buy stolen property from Detective Harris but that he needed Newport cigarettes. Detective Harris indicated to Respondent that he would return on a later date with stolen Newport cigarettes for Respondent to purchase. On or about January 19, 1990, Detective Harris, while monitored by investigator Parsons and Detective Williams, drove to Respondent's premises accompanied by Investigators McQueen and Turner as part of the sting investigation. Detective Harris parked in front of Respondent's premises and exited his vehicle. Detective Harris approached Respondent and related "I have five cartons of Newport 100's for you which I stole the other day". Respondent asked Detective Harris where the merchandise was and inquired if he was "wired". Detective Harris exited the premises, returned to his vehicle, removed the cigarettes that he asserted were stolen and reentered Respondent's business. Respondent handed Detective Harris $30.00 in exchange for the cigarettes. On or about January 24, 1990, Detectives Harris and Williams, while monitored by Investigator Parsons, Detectives Henry and Kewin, reentered Respondent's licensed premises as part of the sting investigation. While there, Detective Harris introduced Respondent to Detective Williams identifying him as "Pete" and further identifying him as his buddy who works at Pace Warehouse who was stealing the property which Detective Harris was selling to Respondent. Detective Harris told Respondent that he had in his vehicle which was parked in front of Respondent's business, five cartons of Kool King cigarettes and five cases of Colt 45 beer which he asserted to be stolen. Respondent asked to see the merchandise whereupon they exited the licensed premises and the detectives opened the trunk of their vehicle to display the "stolen" merchandise. Respondent agreed to "buy it all" and directed the detectives to drive their vehicle around to the back of his premises into an attached garage area. A discussion ensued from which Respondent admitted that he had previously been arrested of dealing in stolen property and if they (the detectives) were "setting him up" he would kill them. Respondent directed the detectives to unload the property from their vehicle into the garage area. While doing so, Respondent walked to the front of the store and returned with the money in exchange for the merchandise. On or about January 29, 1990, Detective Williams, while monitored by Detectives Henry and Kewin, reentered Respondent's licensed premises as part of the ongoing sting investigation. While there, Detective Williams approached Respondent and related "I kept you in mind" to which Respondent related "I think I know what you're talking about". Detective Williams then stated to Respondent "I stole some more stuff from Pace". Respondent then asked to see the merchandise whereupon the Detectives told Respondent that they had a "trunk full of stuff, they don't even know it's gone yet". Detective Williams related having about nine cases of beer and some cigarettes which he agreed to let Respondent purchased for $60.00. Respondent agreed to make the purchase whereupon Detective Williams and Respondent exited the licensed premises and Detective Williams opened the trunk of his vehicle to display the merchandise. Respondent directed Detective Williams to bring the beer into the licensed premises and Respondent removed two cartons of Newport 100's and two cartons of Kool cigarettes which he (Respondent) carried into the licensed premises. Upon reentering the licensed premises, Detective Harris and Respondent negotiated a price for the merchandise. Respondent tendered Detective Williams $36.00 from the cash register in exchange for the "stolen" merchandise. Before leaving, Detective Williams advised Respondent that he would have to slack off from stealing from Pace because he had taken quite a bit over the past week. Respondent requested that Detective Williams bring him some cigarettes and some more Old Milwaukee beer concluding that he could not buy what he could not sell and that he still had some Colt 45 left from his last purchase. On or about January 30, 1990 Officer Adams entered Respondent's licensed premises on two separate occasions and purchased two cans of Colt 45 beer, two packs of Newport 100's and four packs of Kool cigarettes. These items were turned over to Detective Henry who secured their custody until the hearing herein. Upon examination, it is determined that three of the four packs of Kool cigarettes had an Indian tax exempt stamp affixed and the two packs of Newport 100's had an extra pin dot affixed to the state tax seal. These were specific identifying marks which the detectives had affixed to identify property which they sold to Respondent during the course of the sting investigation. On or about March 29, 1990, Detectives Williams, Henry, Kewin and Investigators Parsons and Merrill reentered the licensed premises and arrested Respondent. Respondent was transported to the St. Petersburg Police Department where his Miranda rights were explained to him. He was thereafter interviewed by Detective Henry and Investigator Merrill. During the course of the interview, Respondent was allowed to listen to a cassette tape which contained a recording of a conversation which took place on the licensed premises on January 19, 1990 between Respondent and Detective Harris. In that tape, Respondent is heard agreeing to purchase the stolen property. Respondent admitted it was his voice on the tape and confessed to Detective Henry and Investigator Merrill that he had previously purchased property which was allegedly stolen from them on three different occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage license no. 62-03664, series 2- APS, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of April, 1991.
