The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's beverage license, Series 14BC, No. 39-03729, should be disciplined because of the matters outlined in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Division was the state agency responsible for the licensing of establishments for the dispensing and sale of alcoholic beverages and enforcement of the beverage laws of the State of Florida. McKown's, Inc., a corporation whose sole stockholders are Duncan and Gloria McKown, holds 14ABC license number 39-03729, located at The Cabin, an establishment situated at 8205 North Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa. This license is a license to operate a bottle club on the premises, and allows patrons to bring their own bottles into the club to drink from. Patrons may either bring their bottle each time they come, or they may leave it at the club to be used each time they visit. Patrons must drink from their own bottle or as the guest of another bottle holder, but cannot buy alcoholic drinks from the licensed establishment. The establishment may sell only ice, setups and food - no alcohol. Mr. McKown is Secretary-Treasurer of McKown's, Inc., the licensee in issue here. He has been in the restaurant and service business since 1937. He opened a large restaurant and lounge in Dunedin, Florida in the early 1960's, and opened The Cabin approximately fifteen years ago with a county bottle club license. When state licensure became required, approximately three years ago, he secured one of those as well. Mr. McKown claims he was open every day from 2 to 7 AM. His clientele was mostly made up of people in the service industry - people who work at night and get off early in the morning. These are people such as waitresses, cooks, restaurant and bar managers. Many of his patrons work at or manage high quality restaurants, and the interior of The Cabin is decorated with T-shirts from many of them. He believes that as a general rule, his clientele is of good quality and is law abiding. The Cabin is made up of one building and a patio. It has one front door, which is manned by a security guard, and there is a sign posted on the inside of the front door which indicates the facility is a private club, non- members of which must pay a service charge. Though it once was private, it is now open to anyone of legal age. If the door is closed, an individual approaching from the outside can not see the sign. Security is designed to keep out minors and to insure that persons admitted have a bottle with them or already inside. The two Messrs. Bailey are the security guards. They wear uniforms similar to those worn by law enforcement people and carry firearms. McKown claims this i s because a firearm was discharged on the premises some time ago and the guards' firearms and uniforms tend to dissuade drunks. Many companies have bottles for their employees. It is Mr. McKown's policy, which he believes is consistent with state law, that two or more people can come into a bottle club and drink from one bottle. It is also a practice of his to allow people to leave their bottles on the premises for future use. Many of his customers are repeat customers who are recognized by security and other employees. If the patron is known to the security guard, he or she might not be checked. Each entrance requires the payment of a $7.00 service fee which authorizes the patron two setup chips. When the patron comes in with a bottle, the cashier puts the patron's name on it using a role of waterproof tape on which is marked the name in color-coded pen, depending on what month it is. Bottles are discarded after three months, whether empty or not. Once a bottle is brought in and given to the bartender, it is kept on the service island behind the bar. At one time, the licensee maintained a membership list. The practice was abandoned when it was decided to seek patrons from the service industry. The inside of the bar is lighted but dark. Music is provided by a jukebox which plays continuously. If patrons do not put money in, the machine comes on automatically after twelve minutes, and the volume is loud, though Akins did not think so. There are speakers both at the jukebox and in the ceiling. The men's room has one stall and two urinals. Mr. McKown removed the door to the stall to keep illegal activity, such as drug sales or homosexual activity, from going on inside. By removing the door, he can readily check to determine that nothing improper is going on inside the stall. The ladies' room has two stalls with cafe doors. He put that type of door in at the same time he removed the men's stall door for the same reason. Both restrooms are to be checked periodically by the manager, by Mr. McKown or the cashiers, as available. The Cabin is busier on weekends than during the week and the staff is adjusted accordingly. On the weekends, there are two cashiers as opposed to one during the week. By the same token, on the weekend, three bartenders are on duty as opposed to two during the week. A maintenance man is also employed. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Special Agent Jennifer Akins was a special agent with the Division and had been since December, 1989. She was a certified law enforcement officer and, prior to May, 1994, had been involved in between fifteen and twenty undercover operations, of which at least ten involved narcotics. She was trained in the identification of narcotics and street level narcotics activities by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and has taken other professional courses in the subject. Prior to the institution of this undercover operation, Akins had been in The Cabin four or five times. S/A Murray is also an experienced agent with twenty-five to thirty undercover investigations to her credit. At least half involved narcotics. She, too, had been at The Cabin prior to the onset of this investigation. On January 12, 1994 Akins went to The Cabin where she was stopped outside the door by the security guard, Mr. Bailey. He advised her it was a bottle club and inquired if she had a bottle. When she said she had, he also told her that her name would be placed on it and it would be kept behind the bar and drunk from when she was there. She gave over the bottle of rum she had brought. She was not required to fill out an application form nor to pay a membership fee. Akins went back to The Cabin with S/A Murray at approximately 5:15 AM on May 10, 1994. They were met at the door by Mr. Bailey and paid a $7.00 per person cover charge to Mr. Sparks, an employee, who was stationed inside the door. This cover charge entitled them to two drink chips which they would exchange for setups. Additional chips could be bought at $3.50 each. Once inside, they gave their bottle of rum to Mr. Sparks who, after placing a piece of tape with Murray's name on it on the bottle, gave it to the bartender. Akins asked where the bottle of rum was she had brought in on January 12, 1994, and was told it was gone. Bottles are disposed of after ninety days if not consumed first. Consequently, the only bottle the agents had on May 10, 1994 was the bottle they brought that visit. That night, Akins and Murray sat at the bar and were served one or two drinks each from the bottle they had brought in. Later on that evening, Akins was served a drink made with vodka by Mr. Strauss, a bartender. Akins saw Strauss make the drink and knows he did not use the bottle they brought in. Besides, when she tasted it, she recognized it was vodka, not rum. She paid for the drink with one of the chips she got upon entering. She drank only a small part of the drink in order to comply with Division policy that undercover agents will not drink enough to become impaired. Akins and Murray left The Cabin about 6:50 AM without taking the rum bottle they had brought, but while there, Akins observed a white male she recognized as Victor near the women's restroom talking with a white couple. Victor received money from the male in the couple, counted it, and gave the man something in return. This procedure is consistent with what she had observed in other drug transactions. Later on that evening, she again saw Victor near the men's restroom. Victor approached a black male who, after entering and exiting the restroom, handed Victor a small package and received something in return. While this was going on, both were furtively looking around. Akins didn't see what was transferred. Even later, Akins saw Victor exchange something with a black male near the front door. Again, she could not see what it was. S/A Murray also observed this activity and it appeared to be drug activity to her as well. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin about 5:00 AM on May 11, 1994. As they approached the door they were met by two employees who let them in, and they paid a white female cashier upon entry. On this occasion they did not have a bottle with them. When asked, they said they had a bottle there from the previous visit and were allowed in. Akins ordered two or three drinks from Mr. Sparks, who was behind the bar that evening. The first drink she had was rum, but she does not know from which bottle it was poured. She later ordered a vodka drink which Sparks poured without asking if she had a vodka bottle there. She paid for the vodka with a chip. Later that evening, Mr. Leal, also an employee of The Cabin, offered her a drink. He had called out that the police were outside and that everyone had to stay inside. He sweetened the call by saying he would buy a drink for everyone. At this time, Akins asked for a Zambuca, which they did not have, and they gave her Amaretto instead. Though she saw Mr. Sparks make the drink, she could not tell if there was a name on the bottle or not. Leal offered Murray a drink as well. All this time, Mr. McKown, whom she knew, was present in the facility, going in and out from the back office talking to people. He had done this the previous night as well. Akins left the premises at 7:00 AM and returned again at 5:00 AM the following day, May 12, 1994, accompanied by S/A Murray. They did not bring a bottle this time because they had not taken their bottle with them the previous night. They went through the usual routine of passing the guard, who asked what bottle they would be drinking from. When they said they had one inside, the guard went to check and thereafter allowed them. After paying the cover charge, they were admitted. Inside, Akins saw two black males and a white male exchanging something outside the men's restroom. They were looking around and speaking quietly, and she did not see what was exchanged. That evening, she spoke with the Bartender, Lee, and with Mr. McKown. She also spoke with a patron, Mr. LaRuso, who approached her and commented that she was either a cop or seeking cocaine. In response, she said she wasn't a cop. The two agents both ordered rum from the bartender who poured the drinks from a bottle with their name on it. The rum ran out while the drinks were being poured, so the bartender finished pouring from another bottle which was not theirs. Mr. McKown was in and out of the back office all during this period and would stop and talk with patrons. He appeared quite normal and was not drinking at the time. They returned on May 17, 1994 at 5:20 AM. Mr. Bailey was the security guard who admitted them. On this occasion they had a bottle of rum with them and paid the cover charge. Their bottle was marked by the bartender and Akins ordered a drink from him which was made from their bottle. Later on she also ordered and was served a vodka drink by the bartender who did not inquire from whose bottle he should pour it. S/A Murray was also served a vodka. Akins paid for the vodka drink with a chip even though neither she nor Murray had ever brought a bottle of vodka to the establishment. That evening, she spoke with Mr. Sparks, Mr. Mille and Mr. McKown. Sparks and Mille were both employees. Sparks said he had been divorced because he used too much cocaine. Mille said he had been arrested for cocaine. These discussions took place at the bar or at the cashier stand and were carried on in a normal tone of voice. The agents went back to The Cabin on May 24, 1994 at 4:45 AM with a confidential informant, (CI). They were met at the door by a white male who allowed them to enter. When they did, they paid the cover charge to Mr. Sparks. They brought a bottle of scotch with them even though they had previously brought in at least two bottles of rum. At that point, Akins did not know if the last rum bottle they had brought on May 17, 1994 was still there, so they brought the scotch to be sure they would be admitted. The bottle of scotch was marked and placed behind the bar by Mr. Sparks. Mr. Strauss and a white female were tending bar. Akins approached Strauss who asked if she wanted what she had just brought in or rum instead. When she replied she preferred rum, Strauss went to look for some in the back. When he came back, he said he could find none, but would give her vodka instead. Akins agreed and Strauss made a vodka drink for her. It was, in fact, vodka, and she paid for it. She also had another vodka drink that evening, made for her by Mr. Strauss, who did not use any of the bottles the agents had brought in. Agent Akins, in a conversation with Mr. Sparks that evening, asked him if he had any more cocaine like that which she had purchased on May 17, 1994. This conversation took place near the juke box which was playing, but not loudly. Their conversation was in a normal tone. Strauss walked away after her question and she went up to the cashier's booth and was talking with some people when Sparks returned. He handed her a small package in front of Mr. Bailey and Agent Murray. It consisted of a small cellophane wrapper containing a white powder for which Sparks would not take any money. Akins put the package in her pocket and it was later analyzed at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, (FDLE), laboratory and determined to be cocaine. After that purchase was made by Akins, the CI purchased a substance from a lady known as Michelle, who Akins described as an employee of The Cabin. Mr. McKown denies this, however, and it is found that she was not an employee. Prior to the purchase, the CI had informed the agents he thought he could make a purchase and Agent Murray searched him before he approached Michelle. Determining he had no cocaine on his person, he was released to make the buy, which he did, on the premises. Michelle gave him a package of a substance, later determined to be cocaine, for which he paid with $30.00 given him previously by Murray. He then delivered the substance to Murray who in turn gave it to Akins for evaluation. It was later tested and determined to be cocaine. That same evening, Akins also saw three white males in a corner of the bar making what she considered a suspicious transaction. They were looking around and acting furtively. There was a big crowd in the bar that evening - at least 35 people. The lighting was good and Akins had no problem seeing. Mr. McKown was also in and out that evening. The two agents returned to the Cabin on June 27, 1994 at about 3:50 AM. When they arrived, they were met at the door by the security guard who asked them who they were, where they worked, and other similar questions. Akins got the impression that he did not want to let them in even though she had indicated that they had a bottle of scotch inside. While this was going on, Mr. Sparks came out and vouched for them and they were admitted. After paying the cover charge, Akins ordered a scotch. The drink was poured from her bottle by the bartender, Ms. Hart, but she noticed at the time that the bottle was almost empty even though she and Agent Murray had had few drinks from it. Akins paid for the drink with one of her chips. Because Akins did not drink the scotch, she was offered another drink by Ms. Hart and asked for a rum drink. The bottles of rum which she and Murray had brought in on May 10 and 17, 1994, had previously been used up, and she noted that there was no ownership label on the bottle from which her drink, and that for Murray, were poured. In any event, they paid for the drinks and when they tasted them, determined they were made from rum. That same morning, Akins saw a black male enter the bar without paying the cover charge. He bypassed the cashier and went toward the restrooms where he was approached by Mr. Strauss, to whom he passed something and got something in return. At this point, Akins was approximately 12 feet away, and though she could not see what was actually passed, she saw Strauss put what he had received into his pocket. Strauss then went back to the bar and the black male left. Shortly thereafter, Mr. McKown entered the bar. He seemed normal and walked around, talking with his customers. Akins left soon thereafter without taking her bottle of scotch. On July 27, 1994, Akins and Murray arrived at The Cabin at approximately 3:30 AM and were admitted by Mr. Bailey. This time they brought a bottle of rum. The scotch, which they had brought previously, was gone even though neither agent had had more than one or two drinks out of it. At this time, a female bartender asked her what she wanted and Akins ordered a peppermint schnapps. Without any questions regarding whose bottle it should be poured from, the bartender poured the requested drink from a bottle which bore a name that Akins could not see. It was not hers, however. She tasted the drink and found it was, in fact, peppermint schnapps. That same evening, Akins and Murray were approached at the bar by a white female, Ronnie, who asked them to split an 8-ball of cocaine. An 8-ball is one eighth of an ounce. No effort was made by Ronnie to hide her solicitation. In response, Akins said she didn't have any cocaine with her, but if Ronnie could find some, she, Akins, would go in with her. With that, Ronnie spoke with several customers but did not come back that evening. Mr. McKown was present but was not a participant in the conversation. When Akins left the bar that morning, she did not take the bottle of rum she brought in with her. The agents went back to The Cabin on August 9, 1994, at approximately 3:05 AM, and met three men, Beltran, Ramos and Encena, in the parking lot. As the five approached the door, they were met by Bailey and Sparks and were admitted, even though they did not have any alcohol with them. Once inside, Akins ordered from Ms. Hart a tequila drink which was poured from a bottle with no name on it. She had first asked for rum, but all that was available was spiced rum. When she tasted the drink, she found that it was tequila. Later on, she ordered a Kamikaze, which contained vodka, from Ms. Hart. Hart did not ask her whose bottle she should pour it from but poured from a bottle with no name tag on it. The drink was vodka. She paid for both drinks she ordered that evening with chips purchased at the door. During the morning, Akins spoke with Mr. Beltran, one of the men she had come in with, who was a patron at the bar. While they were still outside, however, before entering, Beltran had asked the two agents if they used cocaine. When they replied that they did, he said he would have to go inside to get it. When Akins later spoke with him at the bar, he told her to get her friend and that he had obtained the cocaine. Beltran and Ramos had the two agents follow them outside and to Beltran's car where the substance, later tested and identified as cocaine, was produced by Beltran and Ramos and given to the two agents. After Ramos ingested some of the substance, they went back inside and Akins put the substance she had received into her purse for later testing. After the parties went back inside to the bar, the men were ejected because they annoyed Ms. Hart. Mr. McKown was there at the time. After the men were ejected, Akins and Murray had a discussion with a patron named Guinta who said Akins had white stuff under her nose. Akins wiped her nose and denied the allegation. Guinta then asked Murray and Akins if they had any cocaine. Akins said she did not but would see if she could get some. She spoke with Mr. Sparks who said he had none available. All this was in a regular tone of voice, and all during this conversation, Mr. McKown was within three to five feet of them. Later on, there was a quite loud conversation between Guinta and another individual about cocaine. Afterwards, the parties went outside to Murray's car where Guinta gave them a substance later tested and identified as cocaine. Both agents went back to The Cabin on August 16, 1994 at approximately 3:30 AM. On this visit they had no alcohol with them. Mr. Bailey was on duty as the security guard and Strauss and Hart were the bartenders. Akins ordered a vodka Kamikaze from Hart. Later on, Hart asked her if she wanted another drink. When Akins agreed, Hart offered to make it with tequila instead of vodka. She made the drink from a bottle not marked with an owner's name, and when Akins tasted the drink, she found it was tequila. Murray also had two rum drinks which were poured from a bottle with no name on it. Akins spoke with Charles Bailey that evening at the bar. She asked him for some cocaine, and he said he could give her a "bump", (a small amount of cocaine), but could not sell her any. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin on August 26, 1994. On that occasion, again, they had no alcohol with them. The bottle of scotch and the rum they had brought on two separate prior occasions was gone. They met three other patrons outside. Mr. Bailey, the security guard, let them in and after paying the cover charge, Akins spoke with Mr. Mille and thanked him for the cocaine she had received previously from Mr. Guinta. At first Mille seemed confused, but when she explained, he seemed to understand, but denied he had any more available. Akins had several drinks that evening. The first was made with tequila which she got from Ms. Hart. Neither Akins nor Murray had ever brought tequila to the bar. The tag on the bottle said "Killian's", but Akins did not know anyone by that name or where the bottle came from. Nonetheless, she paid for the drink, tasted it, and determined it was tequila. She also had a drink made with Amaretto that evening which she bought from Mr. Strauss. In this case, also, she was served a drink made with a beverage she had not brought in. Murray was served a rum drink from a bottle marked "hooters". She did not work for or know anybody from Hooters. Apparently, that same evening, Akins was looking quite tired as she sat at the bar. She was approached by Julio Pabone who said he could get her something that would wake her up. He then spoke with Mr. Leal, after which he came back to Akins and asked for money. She gave him $20.00 to add to what he already had, and he returned to Leal, gave him the money, and received a baggy with white powder in it in return. Returning to Akins, Pabone gave the baggy to her. The substance in the bag was later tested and identified as cocaine. Leal is an employee of the licensee. That same evening, Murray saw two women in the restroom use what appeared to her to be cocaine near the sink. On September 9, 1994, the agents again went to The Cabin and were admitted by Charles Bailey. After paying the cover charge, and while sitting at the bar, Akins saw a patron identified as Manuel pull out a wrapper containing a white substance and give it to another male who gave him money in return for it. At the time of this transaction, Mr. McKown was standing approximately five feet away. Later on, a male identified as Julio approached Akins and said he needed $30.00 for cocaine. She gave him the money and he went into the men's room followed by Leal and another individual. When Julio came out, he gave Akins a package with white powder in it which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. Mr. McKown was present in the bar at the time, but Akins cannot say whether he observed this transaction. On the evening of September 30, 1994, Sergeant Woodrow A. Ray, a longtime employee of the Division, was the supervisor of the raid conducted at The Cabin. When he arrived, he entered the establishment to insure that all other agents were in place. Sometime thereafter, Agent Miller, also a long time employee of the Division, arrived to serve an Emergency Order of Suspension on the licensee. Miller contacted Mr. McKown, read the Search Warrant and the Emergency Order of Suspension to him, and advised him of his rights against self-incrimination. While this was being done, Mr. McKown expressed surprise regarding the narcotics allegations but admitted he may have sold some alcohol. He stated this four times in different ways. He stated, "We may have sold some alcohol but no drugs"; "Maybe my people sold liquor, but I don't know about drugs"; "We sell a few drinks to help the guys, but no drugs"; and "If drugs were sold, I never knew it - maybe drinks but no drugs." Agent Miller helped with the ensuing search, in the course of which he went into the office to seize the license. He also searched the adjoining storage area in which he discovered a black bag. He asked McKown if the bag was his, which McKown denied. McKown indicated that only himself, Mr. Leal, and Charles Bailey had access to this room. Miller then went to get Bailey, who had been detained on the patio, advised him of his rights, and asked if the bag was his. Bailey acknowledged it was. Miller took Bailey back inside where he placed him in a chair under guard. Miller had Bailey identify the bag and when he did, Miller asked if there was anything in it he should know about. Bailey thereafter gave his permission to search the bag. Before the bag was opened, however, Miller had it taken outside to be sniffed by the narcotics detection dog on the scene who alerted on it. Miller then opened the bag, and inside, in an ammunition box, found drug paraphernalia and approximately 98.6 grams of a white powder which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. On or about February 4, 1993, Gene Leal, who was the manager of The Cabin, cashed a check there for Julio Pabone in the amount of $120.00 which was subsequently dishonored. When contacted about this, Pabone agreed to pay off the check in periodic cash payments, and in fact, did so, making a payment of $20.00 on August 26, 1994. The payment which Leal received on that date was not for cocaine but in repayment of a portion of the dishonored check. Company policy regarding illegal drugs is simple. If seen going on, the activity is to be stopped and the individual expelled from the facility forever. Mr. McKown recalls this as having happened at least six times in the year prior to closing. He claims he has no use for drugs and never has. He has a "no tolerance" policy for any drug activity he knew about, and his employees knew that. This policy is not in writing, however. Mr. McKown has not had any of his employees trained in drug identification, and even though he is aware of the state's responsible vendor program, neither he nor any of his employees have participated in it. Mr. Leal has worked for The Cabin for approximately eight years, as has Mr. Sparks. Both were instructed regarding the company's drug policy. Most of The Cabin employees have been on staff for between eight and fifteen years. Mr. McKown claims he would have periodic meetings with employees to inform them of his policy and to solicit reports of illegal activity. In addition to these instructions, employees are furnished with trespass warning slips which are to be issued when patrons are expelled for drug use. Two of these were introduced into evidence. Byron L. Bailey, one of the security guards, confirms this. Though usually stationed at the front door, he would make between four and five checks per night of the restrooms to be sure they were not being used for drug activity or for drinking. He did not, however, look to see what was going on in the lounge. Kathryn Katz, also formerly an employee of The Cabin, was instructed in the company's policy when hired. Not only was the use or transfer of drugs prohibited but so was the sale of alcohol. She was told that only those individuals who had a bottle with them or already inside could be admitted. It is possible that some people lied about this, but she had to take their word. If they said they had a bottle inside, she would admit them. She also checked the ladies' restroom periodically. The Cabin welcomes law enforcement officers as patrons. When deputies from the sheriff's office periodically come out and park in the lot of the neighboring Steak and Ale, they are always welcome. Approximately a year prior to the hearing, Mr. McKown was reportedly told that a van was in his lot from which drugs were being sold. He claims he called 911 and an arrest was made. However, over the fifteen years he's operated The Cabin, Mr. McKown claims there has never been an arrest made inside the club. Concerning the "admissions" he made to Agent Miller at the time of the service of the warrant and the Order of Suspension, Mr. McKown was reading a copy of the affidavit as Miller was reading it to him. As he read it, he was shocked to discover that his own people, whom he felt were family, were doing such things. He admits that perhaps his employees made a mistake in selling drinks. He does not condone it and he definitely does not condone any sales of illegal drugs. His admissions were not meant to specific dates or incidents but were rhetorical more than actual. He admitted his employees had the opportunity to sell unlawful drinks. He does not believe, in his heart, however, that they made any drug sales. He is wrong. No bottles of alcohol were seized by law enforcement officials at the time of the raid. Approximately two weeks after the closing, Mr. McKown conducted an inventory of the bottles on the premises. At that time, there were approximately one hundred fifty bottles, all of which, he insists, had patrons' names on them. Of that number, thirty to forty were establishment bottles. The balance were owned by individuals. Several prominent restaurant owners and managers who patronize The Cabin have known Mr. McKown for several years. None has ever observed any illegal drug activity inside the establishment and had they done so, would have left and not returned. Mr. Caballero, a former Tampa City Councilman, has patronized The Cabin since it was opened. Because of his public position, he was very sensitive to any possibility of illegal activity in his presence, and though he would be at the club once or twice a month, never saw any such conduct. All of these individuals claim to be friends of Mr. McKown. Dr. Poritz and Mr. Queen, a chiropractor and private investigator, respectively, have also patronized The Cabin periodically for several years. Neither has ever seen any illegal activity in there. Mr. Queen, while a member of the Tampa Police Department's Narcotics Division, would patronize the establishment periodically and was always comfortable there. Had he seen any illegal activity on the premises, he would taken appropriate action as a law enforcement officer and would have reported what he saw. A previous Administrative Complaint was filed against the Respondent in 1993 for violation of liquor sales laws. At that time, the Respondent and the Division entered into a Consent Agreement which called for Respondent to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 plus investigative costs of $14.50, and to provide a letter of corrective action. This letter, dated July 31, 1993, and signed by Mr. McKown and several of his employees, such as Mr. Bailey, Mr. Leal, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Hart, all of whom are referenced in the instant action, indicated the signatories had come up with a good system "to keep people without a bottle from coming in" which should "tighten it up and not break down as it did." From the evidence presented, it appears they were wrong and that their system did not work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 39-3729, Series 14BC, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-5882 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except that the evidence indicates the January 12, 1994 visit occurred prior to the commencement of the instant investigation. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 17. - 21. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 27. - 29. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 32. - 34. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. - 37. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 45. Accepted and incorporated herein. 46. & 47. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Thomas Wright, Esquire Suite A 2506 Tampa Bay Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33607 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation filed September 11, 1986, the parties agreed to findings of fact 1-11. Donna Sawyer filed a preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for liquor license on January 20, 1984, on Department of Business Regulation form No. 747L. On September 18, 1984, Donna Sawyer was notified by Respondent that she had been selected in the lottery held on September 12, 1984, to be eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license. That on or about November 2, 1984, Donna Sawyer, acting through her wholly owned corporation, Sarasota County Liquors, Inc., filed a sworn "application for Alcoholic Beverage License" (Department of Business Regulation Form No. 700L), with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That application included a description of a location which was to be the licensed premises. A Personal Questionaire, Department of Business Regulation Form 710L, was also included by Petitioner with said application. The license application was denied by Respondent on March 8, 1985. The grounds for the denial as stated in the denial letter were Petitioner's failure to provide: (1) proof of right of occupancy to the premises Petitioner was seeking to license; (2) verification of financial investment; (3) business name, and (4) sketch of the premises affixed to the application. On April 10, 1985, Sandra Allen, Esquire, acting on behalf of Petitioner, requested an administrative hearing in order to contest the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license. Joseph Forbes, Esquire, of Gainesville, Florida, was then retained by Petitioner to resolve the denial of the requested license, which was then pending before the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, as an informal administrative proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In this capacity, Forbes, among other things filed a Motion for Continuance and Stipulation in this case attached to a June 6, 1985 cover letter. Forbes thereafter reached an agreement in the informal proceeding with Thomas Klein, Esquire, then counsel of record for Respondent, evidenced by letter dated October 1, 1985, which in its relevant portions indicated: This is to continue our telephone conversation of October 1, 1985, in which the following was discussed and agreed upon: Sarasota Liquors - your client will have 45 days from the date of this letter to cure the defects set forth in the March 8, 1985 letter of denial. Please direct your client to respond to the Tallahassee office. In order to rectify the original deficiencies causing the license denial, Petitioner re-filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License, Department of Business Regulation Form 700L, including exhibits, with Respondent, on or about November 13, 1985. Petitioner's re-filed license application was denied by Respondent on February 19, 1986, for two reasons: (1) "Application incomplete as applicant does not have right of occupancy to the premises for which she is seeking to license," and (2) "Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation." On or about November 4, 1985, while searching for a location to submit as the licensed premises, in the re-filed application of November 13, 1985, Donna Sawyer and Ocie Allen met with Alton Allen at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, who was an agent for Walter Spector, owner of several retail store spaces at that address. Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation, Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, entered into a lease for a store at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. On or about November 4, 1985, Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, purportedly subleased the premises at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida to Petitioner. That Petitioner had submitted a letter dated November 4, 1984, signed by Jim Irey, as President of Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which is attached to the November 13, 1985 application, which stated that certain financial support would be available to the subject alcoholic beverage sales contemplated by Petitioner. That as a result of the investigation following the November 13, 1985 application, Respondent was "unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation," since Respondent's agents were unable to locate Jim Irey or his company at the address indicated on the November 4, 1984 letter. Based upon the evidence presented, the following additional findings of fact are made: Donna Sawyer's preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for a quota liquor license included instructions to the applicant that it was the first part of a two part application and that the second part would require proof of occupancy for the premises to be licensed. The second part of the application was that license application filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco on November 2, 1984, and again on November 13, 1985. As part of the notification that she was eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license, Donna Sawyer was advised that she had 45 days to file a full and complete application and that if she failed to do so, this failure would be deemed as a waiver of her right to file for a new quota liquor license. The letter also advised her that the Division had 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon her application. The Petitioner's first quota liquor license application was denied on March 8, 1985. March 8, 1985, was within 180 days of the applicable lottery drawing held on September 12, 1984. The agreement of the parties to resolve the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license evidences an tacit agreement by the parties to waive any applicable time limits existing at that time in order to allow the Petitioner to resubmit a corrected application within 45 days as allowed by the Thomas Klein letter of October 1, 1985. The Division investigated the Petitioner's second application and determined that the applicant did not have a right of occupancy to the premises sought to be licensed, 258 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, because Petitioner only had a purported sublease for the subject premises from Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Ft. Myers A & T Corporation had obtained a lease for the property on November 4, 1985, from Walter Spector, deceased at the time of the administrative hearing. Said lease between Walter Spector, lessor, and Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, lessee, provided that subleases must be approved by the lessor and be in writing. The Petitioner did not produce evidence of written authorization by Walter Spector to allow Ocie Allen or Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, Inc., to sublease the subject premises to the Petitioner or to any other person. The only evidence of such authorization was the hearsay statement by Ocie Allen that Walter Spector had orally given such authorization. Furthermore, Mr. Alton Allen, then agent for Mr. Spector for leasing this property testified he had no knowledge that Mr. Spector was ever informed of a sublease. Therefore it is found that the sublease violated a material provision of the underlying lease from Walter Spector to Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Mr. Ocie Allen, agent for the Petitioner and Donna Sawyer, testified and it is found that there was no intention for the Petitioner to operate an alcoholic beverage license at the 258 Tamiami Trail location. Petitioner's November 13, 1985, license application was also denied on February 19, 1986, for: Application incomplete as . . . the Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation. This denial was due to the Division's agents being unable to verify the availability of financial funding from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. The Petitioner had submitted a November 9, 1984 letter from that corporation in its November 13, 1985 license application offering certain funding. Upon checking phone directories and making attempted telephone calls to the source named in that letter, the Division was not able to find the named business as source of funding. The Division further investigated Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. as an alleged source of funding by sending an agent, Robert B. Baggett, to the address supplied by the applicant in a November 9, 1984 letter from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., only to find that no such business was located there and no neighbors knew of a new location. Sandra Allen, Esquire, testified that the source of the funding at the time of the second application was a new company run by the same person who was behind Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which was named as the source in the November 9, 1984 letter. However, this new company's name and address and verification of continued financial support to the Petitioner could not reasonably be determined by the Division and no evidence was presented that the Division had ever been provided with said new company's name or location prior to the denial of the second license application. Contradictory testimony was presented by Lt. Ewing and Sgt. Mills as to the existence of a policy requiring a "14 day" deficiency notice letter to applicants. It is clear that that policy was not recognized in the office supervised by Sgt. Mills. It was also not established that Lt. Ewing had the authority to set or enunciate policy for the Division.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated record described above, I make the following relevant findings of fact: The Petitioner currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 11-74 SRX, series 4-COP. The currently licensed premises include all of the rooms within Petitioner's clubhouse. On or about September 14, 1984, the Petitioner filed an application in which it requested that its licensed premises be extended to include all of the golf course which is adjacent to the clubhouse. The Petitioner's golf course consists of approximately 262 acres. The Petitioner is the owner of and has exclusive possession and control over all of the premises it seeks to have included in its license. The area Petitioner seeks to have included in its license includes other buildings in addition to the clubhouse building. The Petitioner does not hold a golf club license. The Petitioner does not by its application propose to have more than three separate rooms or enclosures in which permanent bars or counters will be located. A licensee is required to designate the licensed premises in a sketch included in or attached to the application for license so that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco can determine the area over which they have regulatory authority. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has, on some occasions, granted applications for series 4-COP special restaurant licenses which included in the sketch of the licensed premises an uncovered patio area immediately adjacent to the covered portion of the restaurant building, which patio areas were used by the restaurant as an area for service of food and beverages. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages has not presented any reason for denying the Petitioner's application other than the opinion that the existing statutory provisions do not authorize the extension sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license was issued pursuant to a special act of the Legislature. Chapter 70-574, Laws of Florida. Following receipt of notice that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco proposed to deny its application, the Petitioner filed a timely request for formal proceedings.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application to extend the area of its licensed premises. DONE and ORDERED this 25 day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of June, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Andrews, Esquire P.O. Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Howard M. Rasmussen Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-03732SRX, for licensed premises at 411 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg. In September, 1987, and particularly on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987, the Respondent's licensed premises were open for business, including the sale of alcoholic beverages under the authority of the Respondent's license. On at least three separate occasions--on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987,--the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises at times when the service of full-course meals had been discontinued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the alcoholic beverage license of the Respondent, Acobos, Inc., license number 62-037325RX. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tim Christopoulos, President Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe 411 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Jamestown In The Grove Apartments Club, Inc., d/b/a Suzanne's In The Grove, (hereinafter referred to as "Suzanne's") holds alcoholic beverage license number 23-1193, license series 11-C. Respondent has held the subject license since December of 1971. For a number of years the Respondent operated at its present location in much smaller premises. Several years ago the buildings where Respondent was located were demolished and a highrise condominium building was erected on the site. Respondent obtained space in the new building and embarked upon a plan to create a larger and fancier facility then it had previously operated. The new improved facility began operations in May of 1983 under the present name of Suzanne's In The Grove. The new improved facility is, in the words of one of the witnesses, "... a high fashion, beautiful people-type disco nightclub in Coconut Grove." The property and furnishings for the new improved facility required an investment in excess of two million dollars. During the planning stages for the new improved facility which opened in May of 1983, Suzanne's retained the services of a consultant who was an expert in the planning and operation of limited membership clubs. The consultant worked with the management of Suzanne's in designing the layout of the premises and in instituting operational procedures designed to maximize the ability of management to control access into the premises. The concepts employed by the consultant were modeled on the procedures used at limited access private clubs on military bases. The premises were specifically designed to facilitate the limitation of access to members and their guests. To that end, the premises had a small doorway, had a desk for checking membership just inside the doorway, and had a narrow stairway that led from the reception desk to the main area of the club. Suzanne's also issued plastic membership cards embossed with the member's name in raised letters. The operations procedures included provisions for a doorman, at least one receptionist at the desk, and at least one employee at the top of the stairs. Often they had more than one employee at the desk and at the top of the stairs. Due to unexpected extremely large crowds of patrons when Suzanne's first opened, they also contracted for additional security personnel to assist their regular employees with access control. As part of the preparation for the opening of Suzanne's the management of the club formulated a set of written policies for employees. Included in these written policies were specific prohibitions against any conduct which would constitute a violation of the alcoholic beverage laws. Each employee was given a copy of these written policies and was required to read the policies and then sign a statement agreeing to comply with the policies and acknowledging that he or she would be fired for any violation of the policies. These policies included a specific prohibition against admitting anyone who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. Between the opening of Suzanne's and the dates of the violations charged in this case, Suzanne's had fired employees for admitting people who were not members. Prior to opening in May of 1983, Suzanne's also instituted a policy of requiring periodic polygraph examinations of all employees. The consultant helped them formulate the questions to be asked during the polygraph examinations. The polygraph examinations specifically covered questions as to whether the employee was aware of the members-only regulations, whether the employee had ever distributed a membership card without collecting a membership fee and turning the fee over to the club, and whether the employee had ever let anyone into the club who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. If the results of the polygraph examination indicated that an employee was being deceptive about whether he or she had admitted non-members to the club, the employee was terminated. The consultant also assisted the management of Suzanne's in the selection of key employees and participated in the interviews of those employees. From the date of opening through August 28, 1983, Suzanne's sold 3,025 memberships at $50.00 each. Since August 28, 1983, Suzanne's has taken in an additional $198,000.00 in membership fees. Because of the large amount of revenue generated by the sale of memberships, Suzanne's has always been very interested in strict enforcement of the members-only policy. It is in Suzanne's best economic interests to maintain strict enforcement because without such enforcement there would be no reason for anyone to buy a membership and Suzanne's would in all likelihood lose substantial membership revenues. Suzanne's entire marketing concept would have been ruined if people could get in easily without having a membership card. When Suzanne's first opened in May of 1983, all employees were required to attend a meeting at which an attorney specializing in alcoholic beverage law told them about the requirements of the liquor laws in general and about the special provisions of the liquor laws relating to 11-C licenses. All of the employees were specifically told that the sale of alcoholic beverages was restricted to members and their guests. The consultant employed by Suzanne's recommended an emphasis on access control at the door rather than a system of point of sale control because Suzanne's did not have an in-house credit or charge system, which is the best system to use for a point of sale control system. An in-house credit system was prohibitively expensive where membership dues were only $50.00 per person. A typical Dade County club with an in-house credit system has an annual membership fee of $460.00 in addition to an initial fee of $1,000.00 to join. Since the dates of the violations charged in this case Suzanne's has maintained its access control procedure at the door and has added a point of sale control system as well. The point of sale control includes imprinting the membership card on all sales slips. On August 28, 1983, two investigators of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Suzanne's at about 2:20 a.m. They told the doorman ("Robert") that they were not members but that they wanted to go in and look around. The doorman let them in, but told them that if anyone asked they should say they came in with a member. Once inside the premises, each of the DABT investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the bartenders or barmaids asked if they were members. On September 7, 1983, the same two investigators returned to Suzanne's at approximately 11:40 p.m. They walked past the doorman and other employees and entered the premises. No one tried to determine if they were members. Both investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. On September 10, 1983, two DABT investigators (one who had been on both prior occasions and one who had not been there before) went to Suzanne's. A line of approximately 300 people were waiting outside to enter Suzanne's. To avoid waiting in the line, the two investigators went near the front of the line and waited until the one who had been there before could get the attention of Robert, the doorman. When he got Robert's attention, he asked Robert if Robert could do them a favor about the line and gave Robert $5.00. Robert took the money and admitted the two investigators without asking whether they were members. One of the investigators was able to order and be served an alcoholic beverage. It was so crowded inside that the other investigator was not able to place an order for an alcoholic beverage. On September 21, 1983, the two DABT investigators who had visited Suzanne's on the first occasions described above returned to the premises. Again they were able to enter without being asked about their membership status and both ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the DABT investigators who went to Suzanne's on the four occasions described above were members of the Suzanne's, nor were they bona fide guests of anyone who was a member. On each occasion when they were served alcoholic beverages, they paid the regular price for the beverages, approximately $3.50 each. On all four of the occasions described above when the DABT investigators entered Suzanne's and purchased alcoholic beverages, the club was very crowded. The extent of the crowds on those nights is reflected by the gross receipts for those four nights which were, respectively, $10,099.35, $5,125.60, $9,973.25, and $5,034.15. On all four of the occasions described above when DABT investigators entered Suzanne's, there were several employees of Suzanne's both in the area of the reception desk at the bottom of the stairs as well as at the top of the stairs attempting to control access to the premises and maintain control over the crowds. During 1983 Suzanne's was obtaining security services from Dade Federal Security. The security company would provide plainclothes guards to assist Suzanne's employees check membership, to help maintain order, and to help control the line outside when it was especially crowded. Sometime during 1983 the management at Suzanne's complained to Dade Federal Security that they suspected that some of the guards provided by Dade Federal Security had been taking money to admit non-members into the premises. Dade Federal Security confronted its employees with this complaint and one of the employees confessed to having taken money to admit non-members to Suzanne's. The employee was fired. The foregoing findings of fact contain the substance of the vast majority of the findings proposed by both parties. Proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are specifically rejected as irrelevant, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, or as unsupported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the licensee. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 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 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 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 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact Prior to October 1977 the Nite Gallery, Inc., a nightclub featuring topless dancers, held license 2-COP No.58-1175 and the stock was owned by Sherrill Ann Perkins and Dorothy Jean Copeland. The owners were anxious to sell and placed an advertisement which was seen by Robert Waldorf, who visited the bar to discuss price. Waldorf was accompanied by Richard Bragg and Mary Jo Kelly. Following discussion, Waldorf, who did all the talking for the purchasers, agreed to purchase the business for $12,000 and gave each of the owners a check for $1,000, receipt of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. On 13 October 1977 the operation of the bar was taken over by Waldorf, although the two owners were still holders of the license. The $1,000 checks given as down payment were on the account of Sharon's Novelties, at Winter Park National Bank, an account on which Waldorf was the only one authorized to sign checks. During the next few weeks, Waldorf wrote numerous checks on this same account to pay for various equipment, supplies and labor for the Nite Gallery. In Application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License stamped 8 November 1977 (Exhibit 6), Dorothy Copeland signed the Affidavit of Seller stating the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly who signed the affidavit of buyer that "no other person except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made." Nowhere in the application was reference made to Waldorf. In 1973 Waldorf was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of offenses involving the transportation in interstate commerce of forged securities and was sentenced to three years confinement with a three years probation period running concurrently with the confinement. (Exhibits 1 and 2). As a result of these felony convictions, Waldorf is ineligible to hold an alcoholic beverage license in Florida. At the time of these transactions, Waldorf and Mary Jo Kelly had been living together for approximately two years. She worked as a dancer and B-girl in various nightclubs, usually in a club where Waldorf also worked. Kelly had no experience or knowledge respecting the operation of a bar or any other business, and all decisions, including the decision to buy the bar and all management decisions thereafter, were made by Waldorf. The sellers, Copel and and Perkins, were informed that Waldorf was the one purchasing the bar and that the license was being put in Kelly's name because Waldorf was ineligible to hold the license. This information came from Waldorf. On November 2, 1977 Waldorf signed a promissory note (Exhibit 5) promising to pay Copeland $300 per month until the balance of the $5,000 owed her for the purchase of the Nite Gallery was paid. Immediately prior to and following the transfer of the license to Respondent, Kelly danced at the Nite Gallery occasionally but otherwise had little, if anything, to do with the business. Waldorf did the hiring and firing, kept the accounts, signed checks for the bills owed, zeroed out the cash register, provided the bartender with funds each day to open the bar, and held himself out and performed all the functions of an owner in fact. Waldorf made arrangements for radio advertising for the Nite Gallery and paid for this service. (Exhibit 10). In his application for telephone service ordered 4-2-78 for his residence, Waldorf stated his occupation for the past two years was owner of the Nite Gallery. (Exhibit 12). After the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly, Waldorf opened another bank account on which both he and Kelly were authorized to sign checks. Kelly often signed blank checks which Waldorf completed to pay various expenses of the Nite Gallery. Kelly made no deposits in this account, maintained no record of expenditures from this account, and she had no information regarding the disposition of, or the amount of, money passing through the cash register at the Nite Gallery. Respondent testified that she provided all of the money used to purchase the Nite Gallery and to pay the initial bills from her earnings as a dancer. She also testified that this same source of funds provided the capital needed to buy a house, boat and two or three cars including a Continental Mark IV driven by Waldorf. Respondent further testified that she made $400 per week from tips as a dancer at the. Fiesta Club in Orlando immediately before purchasing the Nite Gallery and that she made $400-$500 per week in tips at the Nite Gallery. Her testimony was that the dancers worked on tips only. Exhibit 8, which is a cash and expense report for the Nite Gallery for December 1, 1977, shows that four dancers shared $17 for their work that evening. Although this was shown on Exhibit 8 as Commissions, other testimony indicated it was accumulated at $1 for each drink the customers bought for four dancers in one evening. These figures strongly militate against Respondent receiving $400-$500 per week in tips at this establishment. Respondent's testimony that her earnings provided the funds for a house, boat, and three cars in addition to the costs involved in opening the Nite Gallery is simply not credible. The testimony by Orange County Sheriff's deputies that one of them was struck by an employee of the Nite Gallery while on the premises was unrebutted All of the witnesses, including Respondent, testified that Respondent performed no role in the day-to-day management of the Nite Gallery and that Respondent did not have the experience or ability to run a business. At the time Respondent surrendered her license to Petitioner in March, 1979 she voluntarily submitted to questioning and the tape of that interrogation and the transcript of the tape were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 21 and Therein Respondent gave her age as 20 years old and stated that Waldorf had directed her absence from the first hearing. At Waldorf's direction she went to Pennsylvania and entered the hospital for a short period so she could truthfully advise her attorney that she was in the hospital in Pennsylvania during the March hearing. During this interrogation Kelly stated that she received no income from the Nite Gallery, that Waldorf ran the business, and that she had no knowledge of how the business was doing.
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 562.02, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by unlawfully possessing certain alcoholic beverages on its licensed premises which were not authorized to be sold under its license; (2) whether Respondent violated Subsection 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, by purchasing or acquiring alcoholic beverages for the purpose of resale from persons not licensed as distributors; and (3) if so, what penalty or administrative fine should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and was at all times relevant hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage License No. 62-10299, Series 2-COP, which permits the sale of beer and wine, but no other alcoholic beverages, for consumption on the premises. Petitioner seeks to impose sanctions on the license of Respondent. Mr. Pagini owned and operated Latin American Café, a restaurant located at 3780 Tampa Road, Oldsmar, Florida. The restaurant serves Latin American and South American foods and desserts, some of which contain alcoholic beverages in preparation of said food. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the menu for Latin American Café stated that only one type of liquor was used for cooking. Respondent was placed on the Division's "No Sale" list on August 21, 2007, for failure to renew its license. As a result of being on the "No Sale" list, distributors were prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages to Respondent. Nevertheless, as discussed below, a receipt dated August 23, 2007, shows that a distributor sold alcoholic beverages to Respondent. Due to Respondent's being placed on the "No Sale" list, Casey Simon, a special agent with the Division, conducted an inspection of Latin American Café on November 21, 2007. During the inspection, Agent Casey discovered beer and liquor on the premises. The beer was located in a cooler behind the bar at the front of the premises, and the liquor was located in the manager's office and in the kitchen cupboards. The liquor discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, consisted of the following: (a) one, one-quart bottle of Mr. Boston Crème De Cassis; (b) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Cinzano Rosso Vermouth; (c) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Chevas Regal Whiskey; (d) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Sambuca Di Amare; (e) one, 1.75-liter bottle of Heritage Triple Sec; (f) one, 250-millimeter bottle of Chasqui Licor De Café; (g) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Truffles Liquor; (h) one, one-liter bottle of Sambroso Licor De Café; and (i) one, .75-liter bottle of Heritage Rum. Respondent contends that seven of the nine kinds of suspect liquor found on the premises were used for cooking, mostly desserts, at the business. The remaining two liquors found on the premises, Chevas Regal Whiskey and Sambuca, were for Mr. Pagani's personal use. The Chevas Regal Whiskey was a present that had been given to Mr. Pagini, and at the time of the inspection, the whiskey was in a box in his office. The Sambuca Di Amare is a "digestive" liquor made in Italy and was for Mr. Pagini's personal use. Although most of the liquor was found on Respondent's premises during the inspection, Respondent's menu does not list any of the suspect liquors as an ingredient in any of the menu items. The beer discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, consisted of the following: (a) 41, 12-ounce bottles of Bud Light, with a born date of September 2007; (b) six, 12-ounce bottles of Budweiser; (c) 27, 12-ounce bottles of Miller Lite; (d) 12, 12-ounce bottles of Heineken; and (e) 19, 12-ounce bottles of Corona. The Bud Light's "born date" of September 2007, is the date in which the beer was manufactured. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that beer with a "born date" of September 2007, cannot be purchased prior to that month. During the November 21, 2007, investigation, the Division's agent requested invoices for the beer found on the premises. Respondent produced a receipt from Sam's Club dated November 16, 2007, which reflected the sale of various items to a "member," identified, presumably, by a membership number. Among the items purchased were other documents provided to Agent Simon which showed that Latin American Café was the member on the November receipt. Next to the name of each kind of beer was the number "24" which, presumably, indicated the number of bottles of beer that were purchased. Mr. Pagini testified that many of the items purchased from Sam's Club on November 16, 2007, including the Bud Light and the Heineken, were for personal use. At this proceeding, Respondent introduced into evidence copies of two receipts which reflect that it purchased alcoholic beverages from two authorized distributors, J.J. Taylor Distributors Florida, Inc. ("J.J. Taylor Distributors") and Great Bay Distributors, Inc. ("Great Bay Distributors"). The receipts were dated August 9, 2007, and August 23, 2007, respectively. The receipt from J.J. Taylor Distributors dated August 9, 2007, reflects that Respondent purchased the following alcoholic beverages: (a) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Becks beer; (b) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Braham beer; (c) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Heineken beer; (d) 24, 12-ounce bottles of "Lite" beer; and (e) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Presidente. The receipt from Great Bay Distributors dated August 23, 2007, reflected the purchase of the following alcoholic beverages: (a) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Budweiser beer; (b) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Corona beer; (c) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Modesto Especial; and (d) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Negro Modesto. Despite Respondent's providing receipts from distributors, no plausible explanation was provided to establish when and from whom the Bud Light, discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, was purchased. The receipts from the distributor were dated about one month prior to the Bud Light's born date of September 2007. The suspect Bud Light has a born date of September 2007, which is after the dates of the distributor receipts and after Respondent was placed on the "No Sale" list. No evidence was offered to establish where the suspect beer, Bud Light, was purchased or acquired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent, Latin American Café and Market, Inc., d/b/a Latin American Café, violated Section 562.02, Florida Statutes; (2) finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 562.14(3), Florida Statutes; (3) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 562.02, Florida Statutes; and requiring the fine to be paid within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 561.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, Respondent is required to approve the transfer of alcoholic beverage license to Petitioner after its purported purchase of the license at a sheriff's sale.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the events set forth below, La Cidra Corporation (La Cidra) owned the License. As issued by Respondent, the License authorized La Cidra to sell alcoholic beverages at a bar known as L'Boulevard Café Supper Club,2 which was located in leased premises at 3632-34 Northwest 25th Avenue in Miami (Premises). On October 28, 2013, Steven Beltre (Beltre) obtained a final judgment in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in the amount of about $3.4 million against La Cidra, doing business as L'Boulevard Cafe Supperclub. Respondent has adopted a form, DBPR ABT-6022, for persons to record liens against alcoholic beverage licenses. However, at no material time did anyone record with Respondent a lien against the License in connection with the Beltre judgment. The record does not disclose when La Cidra ceased operating the bar. However, on January 21, 2014, Intervenor registered "L'Boulevard Café Supperclub" as a fictitious name, and Intervenor and La Cidra signed an "Application for Transfer of Ownership of an Alcoholic Beverage License" concerning the License. On February 13, 2014, Intervenor purchased from La Cidra all of its assets, including the License. At closing, La Cidra assigned the Premises lease by an assignment that was signed by La Cidra, Intervenor, and the lessor. The assignment acknowledges that Intervenor has paid the lessor a security deposit of $10,000. A closing statement reflects a purchase price of $100,000, which is represented by a $15,000 deposit and $85,000 promissory note. On February 20, Intervenor filed with Respondent the application described in the preceding paragraph, and Respondent, on the same date, issued to Intervenor a temporary license based on the License. Five days after the closing described in the preceding paragraph, on February 18, 2014, the Clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court issued a Writ of Execution directing all sheriffs in the state of Florida "to levy upon property subject to execution of . . . La Cidra . . . to satisfy the sum of [approximately $3.4 million]." The Miami-Dade County Sheriff's Office levied upon property on March 8, 2014--23 days after the closing of the conveyance of the License from La Cidra to Intervenor. The seized property included alcoholic beverages, bar equipment, computers, televisions, phones, stage lights, radios, smoke machines, and shop equipment, as well as the following intangible personal property: a certificate evidencing La Cidra as the licensee under the License, an $85,000 "secured" promissory note that is not further identified, and currency totaling $17,206 in denominations as large as $100 bills. After the seizure, the sheriff advertised the sale of the property by auction on April 30. The list of property to be sold included the License, but not the promissory note or cash, whose disposition is undisclosed in the record. On April 30, 2014--over two months after the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance--the sheriff executed a Sheriff's Bill of Sale transferring all "right, title and interest" of La Cidra to all of the advertised property to Respondent for the sum of $2000 plus $140 sales tax, which represented the highest bid at the sheriff's sale. Immediately after the sheriff's levy, in March, Respondent was contacted by various parties, including the sheriff's office, which provided Respondent with a copy of the writ of execution and list of seized property.3 On April 7, 2014, Respondent received a letter from Daniel W. Courtney, an attorney whose cover letter states that he represents Intervenor. The letter recites that Respondent properly had issued a temporary license to Intervenor, but later had withheld the issuance of the permanent License to Intervenor due to its receipt of information from the sheriff concerning the purported seizure of the License. The letter asserts that this was an improper seizure because the License was not the property of La Cidra at the time of the seizure and requests that Respondent issue the permanent License to Intervenor without delay. Unmoved by Mr. Courtney's letter, on June 4, 2014, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny License to Intervenor. The notice cites the writ of execution issued on February 18 and reasons that "neither the putative transferor nor putative transferee possess[es] title for the transfer of the [License]." This reasoning does not account for the simple chronology of events in which the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance preceded the sheriff's levy and sale. On June 14, 2014, Intervenor requested an administrative hearing on the proposed denial. By Order of Dismissal entered April 30, 2015, Respondent acknowledged that its failure for more than 90 days to issue a decision on Intervenor's transfer application for a permanent License required Respondent to deem that the application had been approved, pursuant to section 120.60(1).4 The Order of Dismissal rescinds, without prejudice, the Notice of Intent to Deny License issued on June 4, 2014, and notes that Respondent approved the transfer of the permanent License to Intervenor on January 30, 2015.5 At about the time that it requested an administrative hearing on Respondent's earlier denial of its transfer application for a permanent License, Intervenor commenced judicial proceedings to obtain relief from Petitioner's claims arising out of the sheriff's sale. Intervenor sought to intervene in supplemental proceedings pertaining to the underlying tort action between Beltre and La Cidra. Intervenor also commenced a legal action against Beltre. The trial court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice, pending resolution of the separate action against Beltre. Intervenor appealed this order, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court on June 3, 2015. On October 6, 2015, the trial court dismissed Intervenor's action against Beltre for lack of prosecution. At the same time that Intervenor was pursuing judicial and administrative relief, on June 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a transfer application for Respondent's approval of the transfer of the License to Petitioner. The page for the signature of the transferor is blank, but Petitioner attached to the application a copy of the above-described Sheriff's Bill of Sale. On July 9, 2014, Respondent issued the above-described Notice of Intent to Deny License to Petitioner that cites Intervenor's documentation of the La Cidra/Intervenor conveyance as the ground for the denial. The evidentiary record omits any evidence of the fair market value of the License and, more importantly, as noted by Respondent in its proposed recommended order, the fact that, on November 13, 2013, Beltre filed with the Department of State a judgment lien certificate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny the application of Petitioner for a statutory transfer of the License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: On October 24, 1985, Petitioner filed an initial application with Respondent to obtain an alcoholic beverage license. The alcoholic beverage license was to be used in the operation of a small restaurant which Petitioner owned, known as El Conquistador Restaurant, in Homestead, Florida. The Petitioner is the sole owner of El Conquistador Restaurant. The application listed the Respondent, Maria Andarcio as the sole proprietor and only person having a financial interest in the business known as El Conquistador Restaurant. During the processing of the application, Mr. Ross, the investigator assigned to Petitioner's case, noticed that the application appeared to have several discrepancies. In particular, Mr. Ross was concerned because the financial information submitted with the initial application listed Julio Andarcio, Respondent's estranged husband, as the sole depositor of the expense account but he was not listed as having any financial interest in the business. Secondly, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient information regarding her employment history. Lastly, a lease which was part of the initial application, identified a potential undisclosed interest, Jose Osario, as a co- leasee. On November 15, 1985, Mr. Ross, routinely mailed a "14 day letter" to Petitioner requesting additional information. In particular, the "14 day letter" directed the Petitioner to provide additional information within 14 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The additional information requested was as follows: List occupation for the past 5 years on personal questionaire. Julio Andarcio must be fingerprinted and submit personal questionaire." The Petitioner failed to provide the information requested in the 14 day letter. Thereafter, Respondent was unable to fully investigate the license application and denied the Petitioner's license on January 8, 1986. For some reason, the Petitioner did not receive the 14 day letter which Respondent sent by regular mail. Therefore, she did not respond within the requested time period. The Petitioner was born in Cuba and speaks very little English. The language barrier contributed to the apparent discrepancies in Petitioner's initial application. Mr. Ross opined that based on all of the information that he had received up to the time of the hearing, the Petitioner would have been granted a beverage license had she only responded to the "14 day letter."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered allowing the Petitioner 20 days from the date thereof in which to provide Respondent with the information requested in the initial "14 day letter," thereby making her application complete. The Respondent shall thereafter review and process the application in the standard and routine manner. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 24th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1176 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None Submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters not contained therein are rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or argument. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters no contained therein are rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Armando Gutierrez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33145 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1077 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927
