The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Tanga Lounge, operated by Respondent Rodde Inc., is located at 6333 West Columbus Avenue, Tampa, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent's records show Mr. Joe Redner as the sole stockholder and corporate officer of Rodde, Inc., which is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 39-738. Case No. 81-2566 contains three counts of begging or soliciting for alcoholic beverages by employees of Respondent on August 6, 1980. Testimony by former Beverage Officer White established that the solicitations of three drinks by two employees were made as charged in the Notice to Show Cause. White purchased the drinks as requested by these employees, who received a "ticket" for each of the drinks purchased for them by White. Case No. 81-2567 contains 44 counts of begging or soliciting drinks by various employees of Respondent and 44 counts charging that Respondent conspired with these employees for the purpose of soliciting drinks. These charges are primarily based on the investigations of Beverage Officers Gary Hodge and Michael Freese. The period of their investigation was October 17, 1980 through May 15, 1981. Count 52 was based on a solicitation of Detective Phil Mickel of the Tampa Police Department, who was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on November 6, 1980. At the request of dancer-employee Cathy Andrews, Mickel purchased a "double" for her and observed that she received two tickets from the waitress. 5 Former Tampa Police Department Detective Nick Haynes was in the licensed premises on November 6, 1980, and was approached by the dancer-employee, Cheryl Jonas, who requested that Haynes purchase a drink for her. He did so. This transaction occurred as charged in Count No. 51. Beverage Officer Freese individually and in conjunction with Beverage Officer Hodge, accounted for 38 solicitation charges (Counts 53-57, 59-63, 66, 68-88, and 163-167) . The solicitations charged in Counts 53, 55, 71-80, 83, - 84, 88, 163, 166 and 167 occurred as alleged and involved direct requests for the purchase of drinks ("Will you buy me a drink," or words of similar import) . Freese observed employees receive tickets for these drinks from the bartender or waitress in most instances. The solicitations charged in Counts 54, 56, 57, 59-63,66, 68-70, 81, 82, 164 and 165 were not supported by evidence of direct requests for the beverage purchases by employees of Respondent. At a meeting held about December 17, 1980, Beverage Officers Freese and Hodge were instructed by their supervisor to require that dancers request drinks before ordering. This procedure was adopted to avoid situations where the beverage officer was not asked to buy a drink, but eventually received the bill for the dancer's drink. In implementing the instructions, Freese used these or similar words: "If you want a drink, ask for it.", This statement possibly misled the dancers to believe that Freese was inviting them to order whenever they wanted drinks. The date when Freese first used this statement was not established, but it was subsequent to the mid-December meeting. It was noted that Freese was not solicited during the first two months of the investigation. Therefore, all or substantially all of the solicitation charges involving Freese took Place after he first issued the "invitation." Beverage Officer Hodge individually testified as to solicitation Counts 58, 64, 65 and 67. Counts 58, 65 and 67 did not involve a direct request for beverage purchase. Count 64 occurred as alleged and was based on a direct request for beverage Purchase ("Why don't you buy me one now?"). This request was made during the early morning of January 13, 1981. Although this was after the December meeting which Hodge attended, it was not shown that he made any statement which could have been interpreted as an "invitation" by any employee of Respondent. The fact that customers regularly Purchased drinks for the dancers was well known to the management as evidenced by the tickets issued to employees for drinks purchased in their behalf. These tickets were redeemable by the dancers for one dollar each. Thus, employees were rewarded and implicitly permitted to solicit drinks. Respondent's announced policy was, however, to reprimand or discharge any employee who was caught begging or soliciting drinks. This policy was attested to by bartenders; former employees and dancers. Although it cannot be found that Respondent actively encouraged its employees to solicit drinks, it did encourage socializing with customers to a degree which would elicit offers to purchase drinks for them. Respondent has since discontinued the practice of issuing tickets or other employee incentives to obtain customer purchased drinks. Counts 127 through 161 involve drug charges. Purchases were made by Beverage Officer Freese and Hedge, individually and together. Their testimony and that of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab personnel established that controlled substances were purchased from dancer-employees of Respondent on the licensed premises as charged in Counts 127 through 137, 156 and 158. The transactions which-were established to have been carried out involved cocaine, methaqualone and cannabis deliveries by dancer-employees Margie Wade, Janie Marsie, Lori Basch and Lisa Scibilia on February 21, 24, 27; March 2, 9, 13, 17, 23; May 13, 15, 1981. It should be noted that Counts 136 and 137 actually involved one transaction where Hodge and Freese split the delivery. Count 161 concerned a transaction outside the licensed premises and this count, as well as Count 158, involved an employee of another establishment. Petitioner's Exhibit 43 and the supporting testimony concerned a transaction for which there was no charge. Counts 138 through 151, 154 and 159-161 alleged conspiracies to deliver controlled substances corresponding to other counts which alleged actual deliveries. There was testimony on the involvement of third person (not shown to be associated with the Respondent) only as to Counts 134, 146, and 147, which essentially covered a single transaction. No other evidence of conspiracy was presented. On one occasion, Redner was in the Tanga Lounge and within about 15 feet of the beverage officer and the dancer when the delivery took place. However, there was no evidence that Redner was involved or that he had any knowledge of the transaction. Testimony by a former employee that Redner participated in drug use was lacking in credibility and was not corroborated. Counts 3 through 30 and 33 through 50 are charges of lewd dancing by employees of Respondent on the licensed premises. The charges cover 46 dances on 12 separate dates between October, 1980, and February, 1981, performed by 11 different dancer-employees. The acts complained of in these counts were witnessed and attested to by Beverage Officers Hodge and Freese and Tampa Police Department Detective Mickel. The alleged lewd conduct included exposing of the breasts, vagina and anus by dancers during their on-stage performances. Typically, the dancers received dollar tips which customers placed in their bikini bottoms. Some dancers allowed customers to reach inside the bikinis in order to touch their pubic areas. On several occasions the dancers squatted and picked up the dollar bills with their exposed genital areas. On December 11, dancer Cathy Andrews rubbed her vagina, then rubbed the genital area of Beverage Officer Freese, who was observing the dance. Mr. Redner was present during much of the alleged lewd conduct. Although Redner testified that "flashing" was acceptable, the exposure of sexual organs as attested to was not limited to brief "flashes," but was prolonged. Further, Respondent's contention that dancers receiving tips tried to avoid contact by customers is not credible. Rather, the testimony of the officers established that dancers frequently encouraged customers to place their hands against the dancers pubic areas when offering tips. Respondent's, lounge is advertised as an adult entertainment facility and is generally known to include nude dancing. There was no competent evidence as to community standards for this type of conduct in the Tampa area, nor was there any evidence that these acts shocked or offended anyone present other than the investigating officers. Detective Mickel conceded that about five other bars he has visited offer this type of entertainment. Counts 31 and 32 concern an offer of prostitution by one of the dancer-employees to the beverage officers. Their testimony established that the offer was made as charged. This was, however, a single incident and there was no evidence that such offers were recurring or that Respondent had knowledge of this transaction. Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 81-2567 allege that Robert Rodriguez holds an undisclosed interest in the licensed premises. Such interest, if any, was not reflected in the license transfer application submitted on April 23, 1976. Rather, Joseph Redner and Joe DeFriese were identified as the sole stockholders with no direct or indirect interest held by any other person. Rodriguez previously owned an interest in Deep South Plantation Foods, Inc., whose alcoholic beverage license was revoked by Petitioner. Redner was at one time employed by Rodriguez as manager of Deep South Petitioner asserts that Rodriguez became ineligible to hold an interest in an alcoholic beverage license as a result of the revocation, pursuant to Section 561.15, Florida Statutes, and that he and Redner therefore concealed Rodriguez's subsequent interest in the Tanga Lounge. Respondent contends that Rodriguez is the manager of the Tanga Lounge, but holds no direct or indirect interest therein. Rodde, Inc., was organized on April 19, 1976, and a $2,000 down payment deposit on the contract for purchase of the Tanga Lounge and liquor license was made on April 20, 1976, pursuant to contract signed by DeFriese and the prior owners on that date. This $2,000 check was issued by Robert Rodriguez against his own account. Petitioner produced this cancelled check (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) and numerous other documents which establish that Rodriguez participated in all aspects of Rodde, Inc., management and financial operations since its inception. Rodriguez has unrestricted authority to withdraw funds from corporate accounts and has signed or cosigned for loans and credit purchases. Rodriguez also utilized a Rodde, Inc., credit card to pay personal expenses on a vacation to Las Vegas in 1979. There was no evidence of reimbursement or other accounting to the corporation for these expenditures. The testimony of the Rodde, Inc., employees did not corroborate Redner's testimony that Rodriguez is manager of the Tanga Lounge. Rather, these employees believed Rodriguez was somehow associated with the business, but regarded Redner as the manager and their only supervisor. Rodriguez issued two checks for $1,408.05 on December 1, 1979, one payable to himself and the other to Redner (Petitioner's Exhibit 32) . These checks each carried the notation "bonus $1500", with a further notation apparently accounting for $91.95 in withholding tax. In view of Rodriguez's duties and functions within the corporation, this "bonus" can only be considered a participation in profits. Redner's credit rating and financial management skills are poor. Therefore, Respondent contends that a manager with strength in these areas was needed to ensure business success. However, Rodriguez's unlimited authority in dealing with corporate funds, the investment or loan of his personal funds, his participation in business profits and the absence of any apparent supervisory duties are inconsistent with the employee theory held out by Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2566. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2, 31, 32, 51, 52, 64, 127-137, 156, and 158 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2567. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 39-738 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1982.
The Issue Whether Sections 301 and 302 of the DABT's policy manual and form DBR 700L are unpromulgated rules which cannot be used as a basis for the DABT's decision to refuse three applications for alcoholic beverage licenses submitted by the Petitioners. Whether the agency's requirement that an applicant have county zoning approval before a state alcoholic beverage license will be granted is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Whether form DBR 700L is an invalid rule because of DBR's failure to file forms with the Secretary of State.
Findings Of Fact The joint stipulation of facts entered into by the parties on December 21, 1988, are adopted as the findings of fact in this proceeding. A copy of the stipulation is attached and made part of this Final Order.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a Florida business man who operated initially a business called the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, located at 1342 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, and subsequently a business called Tony Cafeteria, located at 340 1/2 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Petitioner was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS, for the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market on Miami Beach. Respondent, on May 3, 1988, served on Petitioner an emergency order of suspension of license number 23-8402, series 1 APS, "in order to protect the public safety and welfare from immediate and continuing danger of drug trafficking and illegal delivery of controlled substances in and about the licensed premises." Concurrently with the emergency order of suspension, Respondent served a notice to show cause on Petitioner alleging eight counts of narcotics transactions on the licensed premises and one count of maintaining a nuisance of the licensed premises. Petitioner did not request a hearing on the charges that resulted in the emergency order of suspension and the notice to show cause. On June 27, 1988, Respondent published its Final Order revoking Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS. The Final Order was served on Petitioner on July 5, 1988. That Final Order included the following conclusion: The facts set forth hereinabove demonstrate that the licensee has fostered, condoned, and/or negligently overlooked trafficking in and use of illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about the licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to prevent the illegal trafficking and use of narcotics on the licensed premises. In addition to the narcotics violations described in the notice to show cause regarding the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, alcoholic beverages were being sold for consumption on Petitioner's licensed premises, and patrons on the licensed premises were gambling on pool games. The International Coffee Shop and Minit Market was located near a large elementary school. The cocaine transactions negotiated and consummated on the licensed premises during April 1988 were open and in plain view. No effort was made to conceal these activities. Children were frequently on the licensed premises during April 1988 when cocaine transactions were being openly negotiated and consummated. The first cocaine transaction at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market during Officer Santana's undercover investigation was between Officer Santana and a patron named Clara Rodriguez. The transaction took place just inside the entrance of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, lighting conditions were good, and no effort was made to conceal the transaction. Petitioner was standing immediately next to Officer Santana when the cocaine transaction took place. Petitioner made no effort to stop the transaction, or to summon law enforcement, or to evict Ms. Rodriguez or Officer Santana. Petitioner commented, in Spanish, that "if you're not going to eat or drink anything, you're going to have to leave," or words to that effect. During the 13 days following the cocaine transaction described immediately above, seven additional cocaine transactions were openly conducted on the premises of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market:. Four of these transactions were permitted by Petitioner's employee Estella; three were permitted by Petitioner's employee Angel. Five patrons, Nuri, Pipo, Maria, Clara, and Betty, were involved in these cocaine transactions. Petitioner attributes the activity on his licensed premises that resulted in the license revocation to the undesirable neighborhood of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market and the undesirable persons who frequented the International Coffee Shop. The neighborhood of Tony Cafeteria is no better than the International Coffee Shop neighborhood. In response to a complaint, Sergeant Herrera and other members of the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Tony Cafeteria on December 2, 1989. Petitioner's employee, Ms. Baez, sold a beer to an undercover Law Enforcement Investigator on the premises of Tony Cafeteria. Ms. Baez was cited for selling an alcoholic beverage without a license. Twenty cans and bottles of beer were seized on the premises by the officers. Petitioner works full time, 40 hours a week, at the Fountainbleau Hilton and is considered by the Head Houseman to be "a fine, dedicated worker." Three friends of Petitioner opined that Petitioner is a trustworthy, moral person. The Petitioner has never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. The Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the narcotics transactions that resulted in the revocation of the alcoholic beverage license at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, nor was he aware that any gambling was taking place on the pool tables. In January 1990, Petitioner was issued a temporary beverage license for Tony Cafeteria, with which he operated until his license application was disapproved by Respondent. During the three-month period he operated with the temporary license he was not cited for violation of the beverage law.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 1990. 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 27th day of July 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Vidal Marino Velis, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite #300 Miami, Florida 33145 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1982, the Petitioner Dania Bank, filed a request with the Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to record a lien holder's interest against alcoholic beverage license 16-15 issued to the Respondent Chula, Inc., doing business as Chalet Ole and Chula Liquors. The lien was created on July 3, 1981, and filed with the Secretary of State on August 10, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying the Petitioner Dania Bank's request to record a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 16-15. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Whitney, Vice President The Dania Bank 255 East Dania Beach Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Suamy Corporation, held license number 23-21872, series 2APS, authorizing it to operate a beer and wine package store (the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) at the premises of a business known as Bristol Sundries, located at 2127 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises").2 Milagros Suarez was the sole shareholder, as well as the sole corporate officer, of the Respondent corporation. On February 11, 1997, Leonard DelMonte, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, undertook an inspection of the licensed premises. Upon entry into the premises, the agent observed shelves on his left that contained bottles of liquor on display, and behind the counter he observed more shelving, which contained more bottles of liquor on display, together with bottles of wine. A cash register was observed on the counter, and an employee was present to attend the needs of customers. The agent inspected, inventoried, and seized 19 bottles of distilled spirits (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-1 through 2-19) on the licensed premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The bottles were all sealed; labeled as distilled spirits, such as rum, scotch, gin, and vodka; and carried the name, trademark, or insignia of commonly known manufacturers of distilled spirits, such as Johnny Walker, Cuervo, Pinch, and Bombay. The bottles also had affixed to them price stickers, of the same type affixed to the wine that was offered for sale, and contained prices that were consistent with the retail price of the product. Given the facts, it is apparent that Respondent was offering the distilled spirits for sale on the licensed premises.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge set forth in the Administrative Action and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 for such violation, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon Petitioner's failure to appear, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A default be entered against Petitioner and a final order be issued denying Petitioner's application for a beverage license. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Melvin Stewart c/o Mel's Beer & Wine Lounge 301 N.E. 62nd Street Miami, Florida Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991.
