Findings Of Fact On September 7, 1977, respondent was behind the counter in Lucy's Grocery attending to requests for potato chips and other snacks from youthful customers crowded against the counter. Robert Young, who sometimes helped out around the store, happened to be in the store at the time, and noticed one Larry Washington leave four cigarettes on the counter. Robert Young told respondent that the cigarettes were on the counter and asked what to do with them. Respondent took them himself and placed them in a drawer behind the counter. Robert Young was still in the store when Victor E. Sosa, who was employed by respondent as a beverage officer, entered and identified himself to respondent. In the course of inspecting the store, Officer Sosa opened the drawer behind the counter and discovered the four cigarettes. In the same drawer he also found some pink paper and what looked to be marijuana seeds wrapped in tissue paper. Respondent first said that these things were for his personal use. When Robert Young told Officer Sosa about Larry Washington, however, respondent said that the cigarettes had just been left in the store and said that he intended to throw them out but had not gotten around to it. Officer Sosa left Lucy's Grocery with the cigarettes and the seeds. He caused these things to be transmitted to the Dade County Crime Laboratory, where Harry Coleman, a chemist, analyzed them. This analysis revealed that the cigarettes, with a combined weight of 0.8 grams, contained marijuana and that the seeds were marijuana seeds.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty against respondent's license in the amount of twenty-five dollars (25.00) DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Francis Bayley, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Rick Flores d/b/a Lucy's Grocery 1920 N. W. 95th Street Miami, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-130 RICK FLORES d/b/a LUCY'S GROCERY, Respondent. /
The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, 2-COP be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a series 2- COP alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, authorizing the Respondent to sell only beer and wine on the premises of East Side Tavern (Tavern), located on Cummer Road, 1 mile east of Highway 301, Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Around 12:30 a.m. on May 16, 1994, Special Agents Ashley Murray and Keith B. Hamilton went to the Tavern in an undercover capacity. This undercover activity was initiated due to a request of the Pasco County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) concerning allegations of drugs sales on the premises of the Tavern. Agent Murray has been a sworn law enforcement officer for five and one- half years. Agent Murray completed a two-week basic Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) drug school regarding the identification, sale and the manner of use of drugs. Agent Murray also completed a three-day undercover DEA school. During her five and one-half years as a sworn law enforcement officer, Agent Murray has been involved in at least 100 occasions where drugs were being sold or used. Agent Hamilton has been a law enforcement officer since 1981. During Agent Hamilton's tenure as a law enforcement officer he has been involved in numerous training classes regarding the identification, sale and manner of use of drugs, including courses taught by DEA. Agent Hamilton has been trained to recognize the scent of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton has been in at least 70 different establishments where drugs, including marijuana, were being sold and used. As the agents approached the Tavern, they noticed a large number of people (100-150) standing in front of the Tavern and in a vacant lot across the road from the Tavern. Additionally, cars were parked along Cummer Road in front of the Tavern. The agents also testified that a "lot" of the people standing outside appeared to be "young". Upon entering the Tavern, the agents noticed that no one was checking identification at the door. The Tavern consists of two rooms divided by wall with a door between the two rooms. The bar is located in one room. The second room is a disco/dance area. Based on the description of the inside of the Tavern, a person behind the bar would not have clear view of all of the disco/dance area. On May 16, 1994, the Tavern was crowded with customers. Agent Murray saw what appeared to her to be a "lot of really young kids" in the crowd. Upon entering the Tavern on May 16, 1994, Agent Hamilton detected a scent in the air that resembled, based on his training and experience, the odor of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton did not actually see anyone smoking marijuana inside the Tavern. Agent Murray also noticed, both on the inside of the Tavern in the dance floor area and outside the Tavern by the entrance, what appeared to her to be a hand-to-hand exchange between customers of what appeared to be money for something that she could not identify. As Agent Murray left the Tavern she noticed what appeared to her, based on experience and training, to be customers passing and maybe smoking marijuana. However, Agent Murray did not actually see the marijuana or the customers actually smoking marijuana. Agent Murray also noticed a customer with a closed fist going to another customer and placing the closed fist over an open palm and then the release of the closed fist. Based on her training and experience, this appeared to Agent Murray to be an exchange of crack cocaine between the customers. Agent Murray did not see or confirm that any crack cocaine was actually being exchanged. Upon reentering the Tavern, the agents were together at the bar and saw a black female customer place a large bottle of liquid on top of the bar close to where they were sitting. The customer ordered something from the bar and left with the bottle. Agent Murray testified that by observing the label on the bottle she was able to identify the liquid as scotch whiskey. Agent Hamilton testified that he observed the same black female with a bottle of "alcohol, distilled spirits" and further identified the liquid as a "bottle of gin". Neither Agent Murray nor Agent Hamilton testified that the bottle bore the manufacturer's insignia, name or trademark. Both agents were apparently close enough to the customer to be able to observe the label. Neither agent smelled or tasted the contents of the bottle. For reasons of their own, the agents did not seize the bottle. Agent Murray thought she saw the Respondent behind the bar on that day. Agent Hamilton referred to the person behind the bar that day as the clerk but did not identify the Respondent as being the clerk on May 16, 1994. On August 8, 1994, ten DABT agents and 20 deputies from the PCSO conducted a walk-through inspection (inspection) of the Tavern. The agents and deputies were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Sergeant Allen Ray observed an individual inside the Tavern in possession of a cup of beer, which individual Sergeant Ray suspected of being under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray testified that this person identified herself as Tamieka Ranell Shaw and that Shaw advised him she was under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray then took Shaw outside and placed her in the custody of Agent Hamilton for processing. Agent Hamilton testified that Shaw advised him that she was 16 years of age. At this time, Shaw did not have a driver's license or any other type of identification in her possession that would verify her age or date of birth. Furthermore, Shaw was not identified by a family member or anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age or date of birth. Neither Shaw nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Shaw's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Shaw was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. There was no evidence that Respondent or any person working for Respondent had sold, given, served or permitted the beer to be served to Shaw. During the August 8, 1994, inspection, DABT Sergeant John Allen observed three individuals in the Tavern that he suspected of being under 21 years of age that were in possession of what Sergeant Allen considered to be an alcoholic beverage. Sergeant Allen escorted each of these individuals out of the Tavern separately. None of these individuals had a drivers license or any other type of identification to verify their age or date of birth. Sergeant Allen testified that each of the individuals identified themselves and admitted to being under the age of 21 years. However, one of the individuals managed to leave the premises before any other identification could be made. Sergeant Allen testified that Ronald Adair, one of the alleged underage customers referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above, was identified by his mother as being under 21 years of age in a telephone conversation with Sergeant Allen on August 8, 1994. However, neither Adair, his mother nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Adair's age was present at the hearing to testify as to Adair's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any type of documentary evidence of Adair's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Adair was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The person identifying himself as Marlon Inmon, another of the alleged underage customers referred to Finding of Fact 15 above, was alleged to have been in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the Tavern on August 8, 1994. Sergeant Allen testified that he talked to a relative of Inmon's over the telephone and that this relative identified Inmon and advised Sgt. Allen that Inmon was under 21 years of age. However, this person did not talk to or see the person claiming to be Inmon. Neither Inmon nor the person identifying Inmon over the telephone or anyone else with personal knowledge of Inmon's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Inmon's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Inmon was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The third alleged underage person referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above in possession of an alcoholic beverage on August 8, 1994, was never identified by anyone before he left the premises. Neither this person nor anyone else having personal knowledge of this person's age testified at the hearing as to this person's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to this person's age. DABT has failed to prove that this person was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Special Agent Michael Freese seized a 1.75 liter of Seagrams gin, alcoholic beverage. The gin was in plain view on a table in the dance floor area. In attempting to seize the gin, Agent Freese had a confrontation with a customer who claimed the gin belonged to him. There was no evidence that the gin had been purchased on the premises. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on the licensed premises of a licensee holding only a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present at the Tavern on August 8, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position at the bar to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage on the table. Also during the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Agent Freese observed a small plastic bag containing a substance that resembled marijuana on the floor behind one of the speakers around the "DJ" booth. Agent Freese seized the bag and identified it as marijuana by sight and smell. A field test conducted by Agent Freese indicated that the substance was marijuana. However, Agent Freese testified that the field test may not be 100 percent accurate. No laboratory analysis was made of the substance suspected of being marijuana. DABT failed to prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Likewise, DABT has failed to prove that Stewart was aware of alleged marijuana being present on the premises. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Lieutenant Bruce Schmelter, PCSO, seized a loaded 22-caliber revolver that was protruding from beneath one of the speakers near the "DJ" booth. The revolver was turned over to DABT. However, DABT failed to prove that Stewart was aware of the revolver being present on the premises. After the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Sergeant Allen gave Respondent official notice of the problems encountered during the inspection. On September 18, 1994, a second walk-through inspection (second inspection) was conducted at the Tavern by ten DABT agents and 25 PCSO deputies. The DABT agents and the deputies from the PCSO were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the second inspection, agents Murray and Aikens advised Respondent that they intended to go behind the bar to secure that area. After advising Stewart of their intended action, there was a confrontation between Stewart and the agents wherein Stewart's daughter became involved. The agents became concerned because of the crowd and notified Sergeant Ray of the problem. Sergeant Ray advised Stewart of why they were there and that DABT agents had the authority to secure the area behind the bar. After this explanation, Respondent allowed Sergeant Ray and another DABT agent behind the bar without further incident. After the incident at the bar during the second inspection, Agents Murray and Aikens seized a bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, an alcoholic beverage, which they found on the floor against the wall in the area of the bar inside the Tavern. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on or at the licensed premises of a licensee holding a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position as to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage. During the second inspection, Agent Hamilton observed an individual in possession of a bottle of beer which individual he suspected of being under 21 years of age. Agent Hamilton testified that the individual was identified as Corey Anthony Owens, 20 years of age. Neither Owens nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Owens' age were present to testify at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to Owens' age. Agent Hamilton testified that Owens advised him that he had purchased the beer in the Tavern from a black male behind the bar. DABT presented no other evidence that the beer had been purchased in the Tavern. Although DABT has proven that Owens did have beer in his possession while in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, DABT failed to prove that Owens purchased or was served or given the beer in his possession on September 18, 1994, by Stewart or his servant, agent or employee. Furthermore, DABT failed to prove that Owens was under 21 years of age on September 18, 1994. On December 7, 1994, Captain Bruce Ashley met with Stewart at Stewart's request to discuss the Administrative Action that had been served on Stewart. At Stewart's request, Captain Ashley marked an X by the first box on the Request For Hearing which states as follows: "I dispute issues of fact. (Please list which of the charges and counts in the Administrative Action you dispute and why)." Also at Stewart's request, Captain Ashley wrote the following: "There are facts and issues that are not true that need to be discussed. I have documents and facts to bring out about this matter." (Emphasis supplied) Below this statement Captain Ashley wrote "Written On Behalf Of Licensee By" and signed his name. Below the above underlined statement there was an X with Isaiah Stewart's signature. On December 8, 1994, Captain Ashley wrote a memorandum setting forth what Captain Ashley considered to be the conversation between he and Stewart on December 7, 1994. However, because of the circumstances under which this conversation with Respondent occurred and the conflict between the statement signed by Respondent and Captain Ashley's memorandum, the memorandum is somewhat suspect and a cause for concern, and thereby lacks credibility. DABT's exhibit 4 consist of computer records from the PCSO listing the calls that the PCSO responded to around the Tavern from May 12, 1993 through June 29, 1994. Using these computer records DABT summarized the type of calls and the total number of each type of call received between February, 1994 and June 29, 1994. This summary shows a total of 69 calls of various types responded to by the PCSO during the period covered by the summary. Of the 69 calls listed in the summary, 22 were calls to backup units which apparently were backup for some of the other 47 calls. Ten calls were to assist a sick person. The balance of the calls were as follows: 2-affray/incite or encourage riot; 1- special patrol request; 1-juvenile problem; 3-miscellaneous incident; 2-field interrogation report; 4-shooting in area; 1-battery (simple); 4- disturbance(noise); 1-accident traffic; 1-illegal parking; 1-suspicious person; 3-narcotics violation; 1-throwing a deadly missile; 1-obstructing police without violence; 1-warrant arrest; 1-robbery, strong arm; 1-simple assault; 2-traffic warning; 1-aggravated assault; 1-weapons; 1-shooting into occupied dwelling; 1- battery on officer and 2-special detail. It is clear from the PCSO computer printout that the whole area around Cummer Road, not just the area around the Tavern, kept the PCSO busy responding to calls during the period in question. DABT presented no evidence as to the legitimacy of the call or if the call involved the activity of the Tavern's customers on the premises of the Tavern or the activity of someone else in the vicinity of the Tavern or what action was required upon the PCSO responding to the call. DABT failed to prove that Respondent kept or maintained a premises which was resorted to by persons who use or sell illegal drugs. DABT failed to prove that between the dates of February 1994, and September 1994, the Respondent maintained a public nuisance at his licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts 5 and 8 of the Administrative Action and for this violation that DABT assess an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 against Respondent. It is further recommended that DABT dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Administrative Action. RECOMMENDED this day 27th of September, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1482 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 Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1-3(2); 4-5(3); 6(6); 7(7); 8(8); 9(9); 10(5); 11(10); 12(4,10-11); 13(11); 14(12); 15(13); 17-18(15); 21-22(19); 24-25(21); 26(22); 27(23); 28-29(24); 30(25); 32(27); and 34(28). Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in Finding of Fact 14, except that portion regarding the age of Shaw, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 19 is adopted in Finding of Fact 16, except that portion regarding the age of Adair, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except that portion regarding the age of Inmon, which is rejected. Proposed finding of Fact 23 is adopted in Finding of Fact 19, except that the field test did not absolutely prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in Finding of Fact 26, except that portion regarding the age of Owens and that Owens purchased the beer in the Tavern, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 33 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Respondent elected not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard A. Grumberg, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Isaiah Stewart, Pro se Post Office Box 429 Lacoochie Florida 33537
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations contained herein, Respondents held alcoholic beverage license No. 64-00029 for the Palatka Blue Diamond, located at 424 North 11th Street, Palatka, Florida. Alphonso S. Junious is a beverage investigator with the Fort Lauderdale office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and has been so since August 1971. [During that period of time, he has investigated seven cases for Petitioner which involved marijuana.] He has had considerable specialized training in drug identification, having been a drug and alcohol specialist while in the military, and since his discharge has taken several courses in drug identification and detection, including 80 hours training with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. He is able to identify marijuana by sight and smell based not only on his formalized training and experience as an adult, but also from the fact that he used it when he was younger. On May 12, 1982, pursuant to instructions given him as a part of an investigation into Respondents' premises, he entered the Palatka Blue Diamond, went to the bar and ordered a beer. Leroy Lane and Queen Ester Simmons, whom he subsequently identified by name, were working behind the bar, selling drinks. While there, he noticed the smell of marijuana smoke and also saw people in the bar area making what appeared to him to be marijuana cigarettes. He identified them from the way they were rolled; a method consistent with what he recognized as hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes. The cigarettes were small and had crimped ends. The smokers utilizing these cigarettes were at the bar at the time in plain view of the bartenders, neither one of whom made any effort to stop this course of conduct. On May 14, 1982, he again went to the Palatka Blue Diamond and stood at the bar. The same two bartenders were there. He saw an unidentified black female sitting at the bar roll what appeared to him to be a marijuana cigarette. The paraphernalia with which she was making the cigarette was sitting out on top of the bar, and the bartenders were standing approximately 6 to 8 feet away. During the entire time he was there, he did not hear either bartender attempt to stop the young lady from making the cigarette. By the same token, he did not see her smoke it, either. He did, however, observe others smoking what appeared to be, and smelled to him like, marijuana while walking about the barroom and in the disco room. Some of these individuals could have been in view of the bartender, but the witness does not know if they were or if the bartenders in fact saw anything improper. Mr. Junious again was at the bar on May 16, 1982. At that time he observed a black male, subsequently identified to him as Luke Simmons, tending bar. Luke Simmons is Willie Lee Simmons, Jr., son of the licensee and Respondent Willie Lee Simmons. On this occasion, Officer Junious did not observe any marijuana being smoked, but he did observe Luke Simmons make sales of small manila envelopes to patrons at the bar. Junious could not hear the conversations regarding the sales and does not know what was in the envelopes sold to other people. However, somewhat later that day, he went over to Luke and asked Luke for a "nickel bag." In return, he was given a small manila envelope, folded and sealed at both ends, for which he paid $5. This bag closely resembled the bags he saw Luke Simmons sell to others. Junious did not look into the bag while on the premises, but it was subsequently turned over to the evidence custodian of the agency and thereafter properly identified as marijuana. Junious went back to the Palatka Blue Diamond on May 18, 1982, and again Luke Simmons was tending bar. Junious approached him and engaged him in general conversation. Again this evening, he saw several persons smoking what appeared to be hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes, and the smell of marijuana was prevalent both in the bar and in the disco room. Again, as in previous occasions, the individuals smoking these hand-rolled cigarettes were in plain view of the bartender had he looked, but Junious did not see or hear Luke Simmons attempt to stop any of this conduct. At approximately 9:30 that evening, Junious again approached Luke Simmons and asked for a "nickel bag" for which he paid Luke the sum of $5. In return, he got a similar manila envelope as on the previous occasion which was subsequently determined by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime lab in Jacksonville to contain marijuana. It was not until August 13, 1982, that Officer Junious went back to the Palatka Blue Diamond. When he entered on this occasion, he sat at the bar and ordered a beer. The bartender this time was a black female subsequently identified as Linda Simmons, who is not related to either Respondent. On this occasion, Linda Simmons was playing a card game which the witness called "Black Jack" with a black male at the bar. They appeared to be betting $1 per hand. Junious asked Linda if he could join the game and himself played two hands during which he bet on each hand and lost both times for a total of $2. Later that evening, he saw another black male subsequently identified as Rudy Swindler selling small manila envelopes similar to those he had purchased earlier in the year. He observed Linda in a conversation with Rudy and heard her try to convince him to give her three marijuana cigarettes. Rudy refused to do so, but offered to sell her a nickel bag. She did not offer to buy. Throughout this entire transaction between Swindler and Linda Simmons, at no time did Linda Simmons, acting in the capacity of an employee of the Respondent, make any effort to prevent Swindler from selling what both recognized as marijuana. Junious went back to the bar on August 26, 1982. When he entered this time, he immediately saw a black female identified as Marian MacRae and otherwise known as "Mulu," selling the similar type of manila envelope. Junious personally observed Mulu sell at least three while in the disco, but because of that location it is possible that the bartender, Linda Simmons, might not have seen her engaged in this type of conduct. This evening, Junious smelled what to him was marijuana pervading the establishment, but he cannot conclude that he actually saw anyone else smoking, selling, or in any way using that substance. When Officer Junious went into the bar again on September 3, 1982, he observed that the odor of marijuana was very heavy. Linda was the bartender along with Leroy Lane, and Junious saw people sitting at the bar smoking, as well as in other areas of the premises. The bartenders were between 4 and 6 feet away from people who were smoking. These cigarettes, smoked by these people sitting at the bar, were small, apparently hand-rolled, and twisted at the end; and Junious's training leads him to conclude that these cigarettes are usually marijuana. Another black female whose name is unknown came in and started tending bar. After this individual became the bartender, Officer Junious noticed an unidentified black male standing at the bar, selling the manila envelopes. This individual was close enough to Junious (directly opposite him) so that Junious could see what was going on. On this evening, he saw this individual make at least three sales of manila envelopes which he took from a cloth bag with a drawstrng. On this same date, there were at least five people selling these manila envelopes, including Marian MacRae, in the bar. Junious came back to the Palatka Blue Diamond on September 23, 1982. On this occasion, he did not observe anyone selling the manila envelopes, but he did see people sitting in the bar smoking what appeared to be, and smelled like marijuana. Linda Simmons and Leroy Lane were the bartenders that night, but it is quite possible that because of the fact that the smokers were in the disco, which was not readily observable from the bar, both Lane and Simmons might not have seen the smoking. However, in Junious's opinion, the smell of marijuana was so prevalent that it would have been difficult for them not to notice it. Junious again returned to the bar on September 24, 1982. As he walked up to the bar door from the outside, he saw a barbecue grill and a black male identified as "Short Man" tending the barbecue. Junious saw Short Man, otherwise identified as "Dunnell," selling the manila envelopes openly while working at the barbecue and while Junious was standing there talking to him. In fact, Junious himself bought a "nickel bag" from Dunnell, paying the $5. This bag was subsequently identified as containing marijuana. The barbecue was approximately 15 feet from the front door at the time that the sale was made. After leaving Dunnell, Junious went to his car and placed the manila envelope he had just bought inside. Then he went back to the Palatka Blue Diamond and, when he entered, he saw Marian MacRae again selling the manila envelopes both inside and outside the bar. While inside, she spent the majority of the time in the disco; and Junious later saw her seated with some other individuals smoking what appeared to be, and smelled like, marijuana. Junious noticed this when he passed her and went to sit at the next table to her, asking to buy from her a nickel bag. When he did this, she opened a black purse from which she took a small manila envelope, and he paid her the sum of $5. This envelope was subsequently identified as containing marijuana. When he came back into the bar after having put that manila envelope in the trunk of his car, he stood at the west end of the bar, from which he could see what was going on in the disco. He saw a black male, subsequently identified as "Quiller Elkins," shooting pool. This individual had a blue cloth bag with a drawstring in his pants pocket. When individuals would come up to him, he would take out the bag and make sales of small manila envelopes from it. Junious personally observed three of these sales being made before he went up to Elkins and commented on his pool skills. He also asked Elkins for a nickel bag, which he subsequently bought from Elkins for $5. This entire transaction was openly conducted, and Linda and Leroy were tending bar at the time. Because of the location of the pool table, he cannot be sure that this sale was observed. On October 15, 1982, Officer Junious went back to the Palatka Blue Diamond and found Linda Simmons and Leroy Lane again bartending. On this occasion, he observed the smoking by various people of what appeared to be, and smelled to be, marijuana, but saw no sales. The smokers were walking around inside and outside the bar, and others were inside the disco area. On no occasion did he see or hear the bartenders make any attempt to stop the patrons from smoking these cigarettes. When Junious went back to the Palatka Blue Diamond on October 22, 1982, Linda Simmons and Leroy Lane were again tending bar. On this occasion, Juniors did not see any sales of manila envelopes, but he saw people smoking what appeared to be, and smelled to be, marijuana; and again, as on previous occasions, in his opinion, the bartenders could see them smoking, but made no effort to stop them. His last visit to the Palatka Blue Diamond was on October 30, 1982, when again Linda Simmons and Leroy Lane were tending bar. On this occasion, he saw patrons smoking, but saw no sales. Again, as on previous occasions, he recognized the smell of the burning substance and the appearance of the cigarettes being smoked was that of the hand-rolled marijuana cigarette. On this occasion, while the bartenders could have seen what was going on, he does not know if, in fact, they did. In any case, no one in authority at the bar said anything about the smoking to any of the patrons. None of the cigarettes observed being smoked by Officer Junious nor the smoke, which he identified as marijuana smoke, was analyzed. However, the degree of expertise evidenced by Officer Junious, based on his experience and training, is sufficient to tip the evidentiary scale toward a finding that those hand-rolled cigarettes, which to him appeared to be marijuana cigarettes and to him smelled like marijuana cigarettes, were in fact marijuana cigarettes; and this finding is hereby made. With regard to the purchase from Quiller Elkins on September 24, 1982, Officer Junious does not know if anyone working for the Simmonses at that time saw him make that purchase or, even if they had seen the purchase made, that they would know what the purchase was. There is no evidence to establish that, in any case, Quiller Elkins was an employee of the Respondents. With regard to the purchase outside the establishment from the barbecue cook, Short Man, again Junious does not know if anyone in authority from inside the bar saw the sale being made or for that matter, if they had seen it, would know what was in the envelope. There is no evidence that Marian MacRae (Mulu) was an employee, and Officer Junious himself does not know whether she was or not. However, on the several occasions he was there, he never saw her tending bar or doing any other work there. He also cannot say that any employee of the establishment saw him make the buy from Mulu on August 26, at least. He also cannot state with any degree of certainty whether any of the employees saw him make the purchase from Rudy with regard to that purchase. This individual does not deny using marijuana with Officer Junious. While he does not recall the exact date, he states that Junious asked him if he, Rudy, knew where he could get any marijuana and he, Rudy, got it for him. They smoked it together on two separate occasions in Rudy's car. While Swindler's recitation that he smoked with Junious is somewhat suspect because of several inconsistencies, there is little doubt that he sold either directly or as an intermediary. In fact, Junious indicates Rudy was a connection with whom he, Junious, palled around while in Palatka on the investigation. He used Rudy to introduce him around in the neighborhood. Willie Lee Simmons, Sr., one of the Respondents and a longtime resident of Palatka, Florida, has been a co-owner of the Palatka Blue Diamond since 1970 or 1971, and he has had a state beverage license since that time. Though he is one of the owners of the establishment, he works there only on Sunday afternoons to tend bar, working from 5:30 in the evening until midnight for the last 7 or 8 years. During all this time, no one has ever approached him to buy marijuana; he does not smoke it himself; nor does he have any familiarity with it. He has seen people smoking there, but was under the impression that what was being smoked were cigarettes. He is in the migrant labor business, as well as a part-owner of the bar, and he recognizes many of his bar patrons as his employees in the field. These migrant workers, he says, often smoke a type of tobacco called "Bugle" tobacco, which they hand-roll into cigarettes. He feels these hand-rolled tobacco cigarettes could well be confused with marijuana cigarettes. Mr. Simmons contends he has a completely clean record in Putnam County and with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. If he had had any knowledge that marijuana cigarettes were being smoked in his bar, he would have stopped it immediately, but he has never been given any indication that marijuana was a problem in his establishment. The police, who have been in his bar on many occasions, have never mentioned to him the smell of marijuana, nor have there ever been, to his knowledge, any marijuana arrests or searches conducted in his establishment prior to those set out in the Notice to Show Cause. Johnny Lee Simmons, the son of Willie Lee Simmons, is also a part- owner of the Palatka Blue Diamond. He works on Sundays during the day before his father comes on duty at night. He knows what marijuana is and has seen other people smoke it. He believes he could identify the smell of marijuana smoke. He admits that his patrons smoke in the bar. In fact, the bar sells cigarettes and cigars, as well as "Bugle" tobacco, a cheap, low-grade loose tobacco referred to by the other Mr. Simmons. On several occasions, he has stopped the smoking of what he thought was marijuana in the bar and found out that it was Bugle tobacco. When he does catch someone smoking marijuana, he immediately puts them out of the bar and, in fact, Mulu has been put out several times for trying to sell marijuana in the premises. To counter the threat of marijuana transfer, Leroy Lane was hired to keep out minors and drugs, and in this witness's opinion, has done a pretty good job of it. Mr. Simmons feels he has done a good job in exercising control over the place to keep narcotics out, but he admits that neither he nor anyone else is perfect. Sometimes he does not get it all. He contends he has contacted the police on several occasions to get help with drug traffic and gambling. He used to sell cards in the bar and has seen card games conducted there. However, when he reread the manual furnished by the Petitioner, which indicated that gambling is not appropriate or permitted, he immediately got rid of the cards; no longer sells them; and no longer permits card playing in the premises. His sister, the lady allegedly involved in the gambling transaction, is not a gambler. In his opinion, the card games she was in were probably friendly games engaged in to pass the time during the slack periods. To his recollection, the only gambling ever conducted in the Palatka Blue Diamond was carried on by old retired men who spent a lot of time there and who passed the time playing cards. These individuals got angry with him, he contends, when he stopped it The denial of the Simmonses that marijuana is frequently utilized in the Palatka Blue Diamond was supported by the testimony of John J. Melton, a Deputy sheriff with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, who, himself, is familiar with both the appearance and the smell of marijuana and has made arrests for the possession of marijuana in the past. Officer Melton goes into the Palatka Blue Diamond frequently--three to four times a week--and has done so both on and off duty for the past three years. If he goes in while on duty, he is there for between 15 and 20 minutes; if off duty, for between three and four hours. In any case, he has never seen anyone selling the small manila envelopes when he was in there, nor has he ever seen any card playing or gambling going on. If he were to see anyone involved in any unlawful activity, he would arrest them if in uniform and on duty. If not, he would notify the manager. He does not believe that anyone would smoke in front of anyone who they knew to be a police officer. Palatka is a small town and, by his own admission, he and other police officers are well known to the general public both when in and out of uniform. Consequently, his testimony establishes only that no illegal activity went on while he was in there. These sentiments were echoed by Abraham Smith, a retired U.S. Customs agent who has a working familiarity with marijuana, its appearance, and its smell from his 32 years in Customs work. Since he moved to Palatka in May of 1982, he has been in the Palatka Blue Diamond three to four times a week for an hour or two at the time. He is familiar with the types of small manila envelopes used for the sale of small amounts of marijuana and has seen them many times, but never in the Palatka Blue Diamond. He has never smelled marijuana nor seen marijuana in that establishment. Harold Lightfoot, the salesman for the Eli Witt Tobacco Company who has been selling to the Palatka Blue Diamond for 15 years, including to the prior ownership, comes in once a week in the early afternoon. He also knows what marijuana is and can recognize the appearance and smell, but has never smelled the odor in the Palatka Blue Diamond nor ever seen any sales of manila envelopes while there. Another frequent patron is James Williams, Jr., a retired Army noncommissioned officer who has patronized the Palatka Blue Diamond daily since his retirement from the Army in June 1980. He usually goes in for several hours in midday and then for several hours in the evening. He is familiar with the appearance and smell of marijuana because of the training he received in the military and is also familiar with the small manila envelopes used in marijuana sales. To his knowledge, he has never smelled marijuana smoke in the Palatka Blue Diamond nor has he ever seen sales of small manila envelopes. Leroy Lane, the lead bartender at the Palatka Blue Diamond for the past six to nine years, lives upstairs from the bar and tends bar from early evening to closing. He has seen several marijuana cigarettes outside the bar. He is familiar with its appearance and its smell, and he has seen people in the bar start to smoke marijuana. When he observes it, he puts them out and, if they refuse to leave, calls the police. For the past three to four years, there have been signs on the wall prohibiting the use or sale of marijuana on the premises, placed there at the direction of the owners and, also at their direction, he patrols the bathrooms. Mr. Lane knows of Marian MacRae (Mulu) by reputation. At first he stated he would not know if he would recognize her if he saw her, but later indicated that she is outside the bar frequently. Because of her reputation, when she comes in the bar, he asks her to leave. He denies knowing Short Man and several other regular patrons by name because he does not ask customers their names nor does he ask them the stories of their lives. His credibility is not significant. Queen Esther Simmons, the wife of Johnny Simmons for 16 years, is also a bartender in the Palatka Blue Diamond. She swaps shifts with Linda Simmons, the sister of Johnny and the daughter of Willie Simmons. Queen Esther contends she has never seen marijuana nor has she seen any transfers of the envelopes in the bar. She claims she does not know what a marijuana cigarette is nor has anyone ever told her what they look like so she could keep them out. It is Leroy Lane's job to do that. However, never having seen nor smelled marijuana, if she smells what she thinks is marijuana, she calls out, "If anyone here is smoking marijuana, leave or I'll call the police." Queen Esther Simmons' credibility is totally lacking, and her testimony has no probative value whatsoever.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondents' alcoholic beverage license No. 64-00029 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of June 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Angus W. Harriett, Esquire 314 St. Johns Avenue Palatka, Florida 32077 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. The Department also oversees Florida’s medical marijuana program via the Office of Medical Marijuana Use, formerly known as the Office of Compassionate Use. Art. X, § 29, Fla. Const.; § 381.986, Fla. Stat. Section 381.986 provides that a “qualified patient” can receive medical marijuana from a medical marijuana treatment center.2 A qualified patient must have at least one of the statutorily-designated qualifying medical conditions and obtain a certification from a qualified physician. § 381.986(2) and (4), Fla. Stat. Section 381.986(2)(f) identifies “post-traumatic stress disorder” (“PTSD”) as a qualifying medical condition. A qualified physician must hold an active, unrestricted license as an allopathic physician under chapter 458 or as an osteopathic physician under 2 A marijuana treatment center holds a license issued by the Department to cultivate, process, transport, and dispense low-THC cannabis, medical cannabis, and cannabis delivery devices. § 381.986(8)(a), Fla. Stat. chapter 459, Florida Statutes. § 381.986(1)(m), Fla. Stat. A qualified physician must also “successfully complete a 2-hour course and subsequent examination offered by the Florida Medical Association or the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association, which encompasses the requirements of [section 381.986] and any rules adopted hereunder.” A qualified physician may not have a “direct or indirect economic interest” in a medical marijuana treatment center. § 381.986(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Dr. Davis is a qualified physician and a board-certified family practitioner who has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida since 2003. His practice focuses on holistic medicine and alternative treatments including medical marijuana. Dr. Davis is based in Gainesville, Florida, and practices via a corporation he founded in 2016 called “Florida Marijuana Doctors, Inc.” or “FMD Green.” Dr. Davis has treated hundreds of patients with PTSD and has prescribed medical marijuana to treat PTSD. The Ties Between Dr. Davis and Trulieve Trulieve is a medical marijuana treatment center that operates 43 of the 213 medical marijuana dispensaries in Florida. As measured by sales, Trulieve holds 50 percent of the medical marijuana market in Florida. In 2017, Trulieve’s Florida market share was approximately 80 percent. Trulieve opened a medical marijuana dispensary (“the Lady Lake dispensary”) in the Ocala/Lady Lake area in 2017 by leasing 2,243 square feet for $40,374 a year in a building located in the Oakland Hills Professional Center at 13940 Highway 441 in The Villages. In 2017, there were not enough qualified physicians to handle the number of Florida residents seeking medical marijuana prescriptions.3 In an 3 Benjamin Atkins was involved with ensuring Trulieve’s dispensaries were compliant with state law, and he was involved with opening the Lady Lake dispensary. He described the shortage of qualified physicians as “disastrous.” When Trulieve opened the Lady Lake dispensary, he was unaware of there being any qualified physicians practicing in that area. Mr. Atkins further testified that “[t]here’s approximately 45,000 licensed physicians in Florida, and when [the medical marijuana program] first started there were maybe five effort to alleviate that problem, Trulieve contacted qualified physicians and reached agreements for them to work one day a week or one day a month inside buildings with Trulieve dispensaries where there was a shortage of qualified physicians.4 Trulieve subleased office space to Dr. Davis and at least three other qualified physicians at the Lady Lake dispensary for $100 a month.5 Upon entering the Lady Lake dispensary one would immediately be in a lobby or waiting room with a Trulieve sign identifying the dispensary on one side and office space behind a door on the opposite side.6 physicians that were qualified and willing to see patients So I would call it a crisis. If you [had] that situation with something like pediatrics, the news would have been talking about what a crisis it is.” 4 With regard to how Trulieve contacted Dr. Davis about working in the Ocala/Lady Lake region, Mr. Atkins offered the following testimony: A: And then we would reach out to physicians we were aware of in other parts, and to be honest with you, some were very cold and uncaring and just focused on getting patients to make money, but then there were people like Dr. Davis who were compassionate and caring. And I remember at one time he drove all the way to Miami to see a child who nobody would see. There was just a lot of demand like that. So we would say to somebody like Dr. Davis, “Hey, you know, would you be able to work in the area of The Villages to see people,” and the compassionate physician would agree to one day a month or one day a week, go to different areas of the state that were underserved even though it wasn’t easy. Q: Did you seek out Dr. Davis to have him come to The Villages area then? A: I don’t remember exactly who sought who. What I can tell you is he was always regarded as somebody that was compassionate and, you know, passionate about helping people and was willing to in special circumstances travel around and see people and do stuff like that. I honestly don’t remember who said first, “Hey, would you come to The Villages,” or if he said, “I’m willing to come to The Villages,” or what. 5 Similar arrangements existed at other Trulieve dispensaries. 6 Trulieve did not solicit nonqualified physicians or other businesses to sublease space. However, if a nonqualified physician had inquired about subleasing space in the facility, Lester Perling, a compliance attorney with Broad and Cassell, wrote the sublease, and Trulieve utilized the same sublease for all of the qualified physicians at the Lady Lake dispensary. Mr. Perling did not advise Trulieve what to charge for the subleases, but he did advise Trulieve that it had to be at or above the market price. Benjamin Atkins was responsible for the subleases between Trulieve and any qualifying physicians working at the Lady Lake dispensary. Mr. Atkins testified convincingly that $500 a month was the fair market price for such space. His testimony was substantiated by that of Department witness Thomas Oldenborg as discussed below. Trulieve’s leasing plan was to enter subleases with up to five qualified physicians, and charge each $100 a month to use the space one day a week, thus earning Trulieve $500 a month in rental income, i.e., the fair market value for the space. Dr. Davis’s one-fifth share of the $500 monthly fair market value rental rate for his one fifth share of the monthly occupancy was commercially reasonable. The evidence firmly established that the leasing arrangement was not a trick or scheme related to the practice of medicine. Furthermore, the evidence firmly established that Dr. Davis’s rental of office space at a commercially reasonable rate from Trulieve did not create a direct or indirect economic interest between Dr. Davis and Trulieve.7 Mr. Atkins testified that “we would probably lease to a variety of people so long as they were willing to abide by the lease and it was safe.” 7 Mr. Atkins’s calculations about how much revenue Trulieve realized from the sublease appear to be erroneous in that he believed Trulieve was receiving $100 per week from each sublease rather than $100 a month. Nonetheless, his testimony clearly established the underlying fact that “if somebody came and said I’ll give you $500 a month or something for that space, that was probably well within market.” The subsequent inflation of that figure based on a miscalculation of the lease term does not lessen the weight of his testimony that the total market value was $500 a month, and constitutes competent, substantial evidence that Trulieve was not offering the leases for a below market price. When questioned again about Trulieve’s methodology, Mr. Atkins reiterated his earlier testimony: While the sublease that Trulieve utilized for Dr. Davis and the other qualified physicians had provisions pertaining to late fees, common area maintenance, and a security deposit, the spaces for the associated amounts were left blank. As a result, Trulieve did not: (a) charge Dr. Davis for making late rental payments; (b) pass along the costs of common area maintenance; or (c) require a security deposit. Trulieve was not concerned with a late fee because it would have been an inconsequential amount. As for a common area maintenance charge, Trulieve deemed that to be immaterial given its belief that it was subleasing the physician suite for an amount far in excess of the fair market price.8 So we would take the space and say, okay, what would the space be leased out for in the fair market, and that space I recall was like $500 or something like that. So then to make sure you’re charging above market, say you have 30 days that you could lease in an average year – or in a year, 30 days per month, taking 355 and dividing it by 12, that you would essentially be charging different people to rent, and so charging $100 a month for the four days is like six times market. 8 When asked if Trulieve acted intentionally by omitting those incidental charges, Mr. Atkins testified as follows: A: I don’t want to say it was intentional or unintentional or misremember. I can just tell you from my state of mind sitting here today that when your rent from somebody is $100 a month, because you’re looking for 30 different people to pay that 100 or whatever, whatever the math is, you know, to charge a late fee of, you know, $8 or something would not have been something I would have been concerned with. *** Q: Mr. Atkins, in your experience dealing with the Trulieve dispensary subleases to qualified physicians, could you offer the Court what some typical or reasonable rates would be for late charges in any of those subleases? A: Yeah, my opinion is if it was $100 a month, a late charge would be like $5 or $6 or something. Q: Same question as to the past due on the common area maintenance, the CAM. From your experience with the As for other arrangements, qualified physicians were responsible for bringing their own equipment to the Lady Lake dispensary. Also, Trulieve had a policy prohibiting employees from directing patients to a particular physician. If a patient inquired about where he or she could locate a qualifying physician, a Trulieve employee was supposed to direct that patient to a state-run website or the “find-a-doctor” tool on Trulieve’s website. Qualifying physicians who subleased space from Trulieve did not receive preferential status on Trulieve’s website. Between January 1, 2016, and January 25, 2018, Dr. Davis prescribed 4,941,075 milligrams of medical marijuana. Trulieve filled 76.71% of that amount. Given Trulieve’s dominant position in the Florida market for medical marijuana, that number is not surprising. The Department’s Critique of the Sublease The Department presented the testimony of Thomas Oldenborg, a commercial real estate broker whose territory includes the Lady Lake area. Mr. Oldenborg deals with investment properties and lease analysis. Mr. Oldenborg noted that the main lease between Trulieve and the landlord of the Oakland Hills Professional Center does not allow for subletting. Mr. Oldenborg opined that $100 a month was not a reasonable rate for the sublease between Dr. Davis and Trulieve. He testified that it would be difficult to find parties interested in leasing a 500 square foot space for one day a week. Leases with such terms are not typically advertised to the Trulieve subleases to qualifying physicians, what would the CAM passthrough be? A: I mean, if you’re charging six times market rent, I wouldn’t charge the CAM. I would only charge a CAM if I was overcharging. general public. Instead, such leases are usually done privately between parties that have a preexisting relationship.9 9 Mr. Oldenborg’s full opinion was as follows: Q: Mr. Oldenborg, given your review of this lease and your knowledge of commercial real estate in the area, is the $100 per month rental rate a reasonable rate? A: No. Q: Why not? A: Because there would be, in my opinion, no possible way to facilitate the lease or the transaction as in there is no way to advertise that type of deal on a normal commercial real estate platform or any available commercial real estate platform. Q: Would you mind elaborating on that? A: Sure. Normally if somebody is to sublease a space it has to be pretty clear on what it is and put out to the general public. This, again in my opinion, seems that the two parties would almost have to have a personal relationship or something to come across this deal. Somebody would have to approach somebody in person and have this conversation. *** Q: Have you ever, in your time, seen a lease advertised on one of these lease platforms with restrictions on days of use? A: No, sir. Q: Have you ever seen time restrictions, as in specific hours? A: No, sir. Q: Are you aware of whether that can even be advertised on these platforms? A: I do not believe it can, which is the predication of my answer. I don’t know how they would list it. There’s really no availability to do so, in my knowledge. Q: If a client came in – if a client came in asking for a lease for one day per week for, say, three hours a day, would you be able to facilitate a search to find something of that sort? A: No. However, contrary to his initial opinion, when questioned about other parameters of the sublease between Dr. Davis and Trulieve, Mr. Oldenborg’s testimony indicated that the sublease was priced at fair market value: Q: In your experience and your knowledge of the area, what is the going rate for a single office or executive suite sublease of a comparable size, say 500 square feet in this region? A: You’re normally looking at – for an executive suite, you’re normally looking at a ten-by-ten office with access to a conference room and you’re looking at roughly $500 a month to a thousand dollars a month, [depending] on what area of The Villages you’re in, but you’re not getting very much square footage. *** Q: Could you estimate about how much square footage that $500 a month lease would purchase? A: It would come with a single office, which would be roughly a hundred square feet and then you would have access to a conference room, which is usually an appointment basis. *** Q: In your experience would you say that [the current lease space of Dr. Davis] is consistent with approximately 500 square feet of office space? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Oldenborg was then led through a series of calculations from which he ultimately agreed that the cost to Trulieve of the office space used by Dr. Davis was, based on all of the agreed upon assumptions, $107 per Q: So you would not be able to find a lease offered on the open market similar to this sublease? A: No, sir. month. He further testified that a payment by Dr. Davis to Trulieve of $100 a month is “[f]air market value, just not typical for that type of lease setup or sublease.” However, the qualification to his testimony that the lease was fair market value was reduced to near zero by the following: Q: And describe for me any experience that you’ve had with part-time leasing arrangements with physicians? A: Very little. Q: Okay. Can you recall any of those instances where you’ve done any kind of a part-time lease? A: No. Given that Dr. Davis only had access to the space in question for one day a week rather than five days a week, Mr. Oldenborg’s testimony established that Trulieve charged a fair price for the sublease. Findings as to Whether Dr. Davis Engaged in a Trick or Scheme Related to the Practice of Medicine or Had a Direct or Indirect Economic Interest in Trulieve Trulieve sought out qualified physicians to sublease unused space in Trulieve dispensaries. However, there is no evidence that the arrangement between Dr. Davis and Trulieve was an attempt to defraud Florida residents seeking medical marijuana or an attempt to “game the system” by circumventing any statutory requirements. There is no persuasive evidence indicating that Dr. Davis referred patients to Trulieve or that Trulieve referred prospective patients to Dr. Davis. As a result, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. Davis employed a trick or scheme related to the practice of medicine. Dr. Davis had no ownership stake in Trulieve. Thus, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. Davis had a direct or indirect economic interest in Trulieve. K.B.’s Appointment with Dr. Davis K.B. retired in 2015 after 35 years in law enforcement. After a year, she returned to the workforce and was employed as an investigator in the Department’s unlicensed activity section from August of 2017 through November of 2017. Her duties included undercover operations. K.B. used the alias of K.G. (“K.G.”) during her undercover operations. Her “K.G.” alias was a white female who had been in the military and had received treatment for PTSD. K.B. began an undercover investigation of Dr. Davis with the intent to get him to qualify her to receive medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD. K.B. initially visited the Lady Lake dispensary on August 2, 2017, in order to gather information about the business. She walked through the front door of the Lady Lake dispensary and saw a Trulieve sign to her right. She saw no signs referring to Dr. Davis. K.B. met a security guard named Jason who wrote some information about Dr. Davis on a Post-It note and essentially referred to Dr. Davis as Trulieve’s “in-house doctor.” However, the security guard said that K.B. was not required to utilize Dr. Davis and mentioned other doctors in the area who could qualify her for medical marijuana. After her conversation with the security guard, K.B. returned to her office and ultimately went on-line in order to schedule an appointment with Dr. Davis for November 1, 2017. She used a prepaid card to pay the $300 appointment fee. She also faxed “K.G.’s” fictitious medical records to Dr. Davis’s office. Those fictitious medical records purported to memorialize treatment rendered to “K.G.” at Camp Pendleton in December of 2007, January 2008, and December 2008. Those records indicated that “K.G.” had witnessed a traumatic event while in the military and was experiencing difficulty sleeping and hallucinations. She also supposedly reported that she had become irritable, angry, and had withdrawn from friends and family. Dr. Davis received those records, reviewed them, and incorporated them into the medical records that he created for “K.G.” He also reviewed “K.G.’s” controlled substance history via E-Force, a database for controlled substances. K.B. arrived at the Lady Lake dispensary and waited in the lobby until Dr. Davis brought her back into his office. The appointment began with typical doctor-patient banter before turning to the reason for “K.G.’s” appointment, PTSD.10 Rather than relying on the fabricated medical records that K.B. had faxed to his office, Dr. Davis attempted to ensure that “K.G.” still suffered from PTSD. Accordingly, he had K.B. describe “K.G.’s” purported symptoms. In doing so, K.B. described experiencing nightmares and/or flashbacks for a long period of time and probably alluded to them being related to “K.G.’s” military service. K.B. also mentioned experiencing generalized anxiety and headaches.11 In addition to discussing PTSD and medical marijuana, Dr. Davis measured K.B.’s blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, respiration rate, height, weight, and body mass index. He noticed that her blood pressure was 10 The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Jeffrey Danziger, testified that PTSD “involves the development of certain characteristic symptoms following exposure to one or more extreme traumatic events. And the traumatic event must involve exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. The person must directly experience the trauma, witness it occurring to others or learn that it occurred to a close family member or close friend. Or the exception is people exposed to – with repeated exposure to trauma such as first responders or police officers.” 11 Dr. Davis testified that K.B. “indicated a lot of symptoms. She had extreme nightmares, anxiety, insomnia, and social isolation, some depression, although she made it very clear to me that she wasn’t suicidal. I remember making it clear. She – and I said, ‘social isolation,’ she said she was gaining weight, she said she was having a lot of – she said flashbacks and having a lot of recurring thoughts about death or death of her friend. I think she may have said some other things but those were sort of the salient points and certainly were enough to corroborate her past medical history and her current symptoms.” moderately high and checked her lower extremities for edema. While her blood pressure was not high enough to cause him to prescribe a hypertension drug, Dr. Davis did recommend that she see a primary care physician about her elevated blood pressure. Dr. Davis also checked K.B.’s bodily strength and conducted a gait analysis. K.B. described her demeanor during the appointment as “somewhat brief and evasive” and acknowledged that she was intentionally attempting to give Dr. Davis as few details as possible about her purported symptoms. For example, K.B. deflected Dr. Davis’s questions about the nature of the nightmares and/or flashbacks by saying they were too painful to discuss.12 K.B. acknowledged during her testimony that there was no difference between the symptoms she described to him and the symptoms documented in “K.G.’s” fabricated medical records. Also, K.B. did not recall giving Dr. Davis any information that would suggest “K.G.” did not have PTSD. Dr. Davis and K.B. did not go into great detail about any PTSD treatment that “K.G.” had received between 2008 and the time of the appointment with Dr. Davis, and K.B. did not recall any discussion about taking any medications that might interact negatively with medical marijuana. However, K.B. did tell Dr. Davis that Xanax and Zoloft had not been helpful and were discontinued. She also told Dr. Davis that “K.G.” had previously used medical marijuana and that the treatment had been effective.13 12 While Dr. Davis estimated that the appointment lasted 24 to 30 minutes, K.B. estimated that it lasted 15 minutes. Nevertheless, K.B. testified that she did not feel rushed during the appointment and did not feel that Dr. Davis should have afforded her more time. “I can say this: From the discussion that we had and from the exam that he gave and the discussion we had about the product and he asked me if I had any additional questions, so – and I believe I said I did not at that time, so I think we were done having that discussion.” Also, in response to a question asking if the appointment would have taken longer if she had not been intentionally evasive, K.B. testified that, “I’ll say that Dr. Davis was willing to answer any questions I had if I had chosen to be longer-winded. So I don’t feel like I was rushed and I don’t feel like I was kept in there longer than I needed to be. I’d say it was fair.” 13 With regard to K.B.’s description of “K.G.’s” medical marijuana use, Dr. Davis testified that, “For her symptoms, she had used it previously and it was very effective for her in The fabricated medical records and what was relayed to him during the appointment convinced Dr. Davis that medical marijuana was appropriate for “K.G.”14 At that point, Dr. Davis discussed the risks and benefits associated with medical marijuana, the different types of medical marijuana, and the different delivery methods. Dr. Davis mentioned that one type of medical marijuana would be better to use at nighttime and another would be better for daytime use if she lacked energy. He instructed her to begin with very small doses and gave her a preprinted log to keep track of the amount she was taking. K.B. acknowledged during her testimony that Dr. Davis told her that she did not have to acquire medical marijuana at Trulieve and that she could acquire the product wherever she chose.15 K.B. also acknowledged that Dr. Davis never referred to himself as Trulieve’s “in-house doctor,” and that he never indicated that he had any relieving her symptoms. She also related to me that she had tried not only the – I think she had indicated not only the other medications that were specifically listed on here, but had tried multiple medications and treatments and had not had a lot of success or had had side effects, but that she had used marijuana in the past with excellent results.” 14 Dr. Davis remarked that, “This was a pretty classic textbook case of post traumatic stress, as it was designed to be. She was a very good agent.” 15 Dr. Davis testified that patients frequently ask him to recommend a dispensary. However he does not do so because “that’s not my job. I have no interest in any dispensary. I actually have very good relationships with all the dispensaries, and my business is to educate people about – make sure that they’re qualified and then educate them about the safe use of marijuana and what products might be appropriate for them, et cetera, it’s not which dispensary. And it’s also a very individualized thing. You know, people like different dispensaries for different reasons, they have different products, and the system is actually designed specifically to encourage people to be allowed to go to different dispensaries, and that’s very different than narcotics where it’s very frowned upon. If you go to – if you get an Adderall prescription and then you go to another pharmacy, it’s very frowned upon, whereas this system is specifically set up to be transparent and allow people to go to any dispensary that they wish, and I encourage that.” relationship with Trulieve. Also, Dr. Davis corrected K.B. when she referred to Trulieve as “your dispensary.”16 Findings Regarding the Sufficiency of Dr. Davis’s Assessment of “K.G.” Dr. Davis’s medical records for “K.G.” list her problems as PTSD stemming “from traumas she witnessed in the military,” anxiety, flashbacks, and extreme nightmares. His medical records note that “K.G.” “[s]ays that the worst for her has been nightmares. She is looking for something that can help her. She has tried numerous medications in the past and they have not worked and she hates the side effects.” Dr. Davis also noted that “K.G.” “has tried [medical marijuana] in the past and it worked very well for her.” Dr. Jeffrey Danziger has been a Florida-licensed psychiatrist since November of 1986, and he has treated patients suffering from PTSD. Dr. Danziger based his testimony about the diagnosis of PTSD on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition, the DSM-5. In addition to suffering a severe trauma, Dr. Danziger explained that someone suffering from PTSD must have “at least four categories of symptoms:” The first category is the presence of intrusion symptoms associated with the traumatic event, which can incur – involve recurrent and intrusive distressing memories, recurrent distressing dreams in which the content or nature of the dream are related to the trauma, dissociative reactions and/or if one is exposed to stimuli that symbolize or resemble the traumatic event they develop intense or prolonged psychological distress or marked physical reactions. The second broad category is persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, which can be efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts or feelings, or avoidance or efforts to avoid external 16 When asked if she had any reason to believe that Trulieve and Dr. Davis were referring patients to one another, K.B. testified that, “I’m just basically saying that in my presence, no one did any direct referral from one – from the doctor to the business or from the business to the doctor. While the – while the employee of Trulieve did say that Dr. Davis was the in- house doctor, he did not state [that] I had to get product if I saw Dr. Davis at Trulieve.” reminders, people, places, conversations, objects or situations that remind them of the trauma. The third category is that of negative alternations in cognition and mood associated with the trauma, which begins or worsens after the trauma occurred. And there’s several – there’s seven factors, somebody must have two or more of them. Persistent or exaggerated negative beliefs about oneself or the world; trouble remembering a key event to the trauma; inappropriate guilt; distorted cognitions that lead them to inappropriately blame themselves or others; a persistently negative emotional state such as fear, horror, anger or guilt; markedly diminished interest in activities; feelings of detachment or estrangement from others; or, the inability to experience positive emotions. You need to have at least two of those seven. The fourth broad category is marked alternations in arousal and reactivity associated with the trauma. And people suffering from PTSD need to have two of the following six. Irritability and angry outbursts, reckless or self-destructive behavior, hypervigilance, an exaggerated startle response, problems with concentration or sleep disturbance. And a few other qualifiers are that this constellation of symptoms in response to a sufficiently severe qualifying trauma must last at least one month. That the syndrome causes significant distress or impairment in functioning, either social, occupational or other important areas. And the disturbance is not due to the effects of a drug or other medical condition. So these are the basis criteria for PTSD as defined in our Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition. Based solely on a review of the medical records that Dr. Davis maintained for “K.G.”, Dr. Danziger offered the following critique: We know that, looking at the military records, that Criterion A [was] probably met. Criterion A means exposure to actual or threatened death or serious injury. So, if those records from 2007, what they reflected, that would be a sufficient stressor. Now what the patient talked about was, there’s references on the problem list to anxiety, flashbacks and nightmares. Now flashbacks and nightmares are intrusion symptoms, which are B. But there [were] no questions asked as to how often, how frequent, how distressing, tell me about the flashbacks which involve a literal – involve a sense that the incident is literally recurring. So, but Criterion A was probably in the old notes and if she did talk about extreme nightmares and was reluctant to discuss them, all right. I’d give him Criterion B. But what we’re not seeing is, was there any investigation as to avoidance of stimuli, negative alternations in cognition and mood or marked alternations in arousal and activity. So there’s some information as to a qualifying stressor contained in the old records and some information, albeit brief, about nightmares. But other important facets of PTSD were not addressed. Further, there’s a reference there to she’s been tried on numerous medications. Well, what medications? It’d be reasonable to ask what medications were you tried on that failed. And then secondly, in treating PTSD, there are various specific psychotherapies [that are] very useful in the treatment of PTSD. And that would include cognitive processing therapy, cognitive exposure therapy and EMDR, the eye movement resonance treatment. So there was, in other words, there was no inquiry into what medicines have you been on that failed and then have you had any counseling or psychotherapy. Because PTSD spontaneously resolves for up to half of those suffering from it, Dr. Danziger was adamant that Dr. Davis could not base his diagnosis solely on “K.G.’s” old medical records: The records from a decade earlier reflect Criterion A, which refers to a sufficient stressor. That’s there. And Criterion B. She says she’s having nightmares, she didn’t want to talk about it further. Okay. I’ll give him Criterion B. I’ll give Dr. Davis that and if someone didn’t want to talk about it, you don’t want to force it. But there’s no reference to C, D, and E, which is the avoidance behavior, negative alterations and marked alterations in arousal and reactivity. And no documentation as to, well, what treatments were tried, what medicines were you on, did they do individual therapy, group therapy, how did you respond. That’s what’s missing. So what’s missing in terms of PTSD assessment is the full dimension of PTSD, is it still present and what treatment did you or did you not receive before making his decision on how to treat. Despite the supposed shortcomings in Dr. Davis’s diagnosis of “K.G.”, Dr. Danziger declined to say that Dr. Davis’s diagnosis was erroneous: I would answer that by saying she had possible PTSD, but the examination was not complete enough to definitively make the diagnosis and proceed with treatment. So, possible PTSD, but insufficient data to verify that was the right diagnosis. Dr. Danziger also qualified his testimony by stating he was not comfortable opining about the standard of care in different specialties and, as a psychiatrist, he is not a qualified physician under section 381.986: Q: Is there any difference in what you would anticipate for an initial patient visit or an encounter to make a determination of posttraumatic stress between a psychiatrist and a non-psychiatrist? A: There likely would be. My colleagues in primary care treat hypertension, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, heart failure, a host of medical conditions that I don’t treat. Some may – some of my colleagues in primary care and internal medicine are very comfortable treating psychiatric conditions and only referring those who are the most severe or refractory to treatment, and others refer just about everything. So it depends on the practitioner. I want to be careful opining what’s an appropriate standard on a different specialty than mine. Dr. Davis had “K.G.’s” fabricated medical records at his disposal, and those records indicated that she had been diagnosed and treated for PTSD. In addition, Dr. Davis’s own exam indicated that “K.G.” had several symptoms indicating she was still suffering from PTSD. Section 381.986(4)(a) requires a qualified physician to conduct “a full assessment of the medical history of the patient,” and Dr. Davis did not gather a significant amount of information about “K.G.’s” struggles with PTSD during the years between the last fictitious appointment in 2008 and her appointment with Dr. Davis in 2017. However, the Department has not adopted a rule elaborating on what a qualified physician must do in order to conduct a “full assessment.” Also, the Department has not adopted a rule requiring qualifying physicians to follow the DSM-5. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. Davis violated section 381.986(4)(a) by failing to conduct a full assessment of “K.G.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Justin C.K. Davis, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 14th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristen M. Summers, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Thomas Health Law Group, P.A. 5200 Southwest 91st Terrace, Suite 101-B Gainesville, Florida 32608 (eServed) Major Ryan Thompson, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Corynn Colleen Alberto, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Claudia Kemp, J.D., Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C03 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner may terminate the continuing teaching contract of Respondent on the grounds that she has been guilty of misconduct in office, immorality, breach of contract, and other just causes for dismissal. Petitioner alleges that Respondent had in her possession two pipes for the purpose of smoking marijuana.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 37 year-old second-grade teacher. She has continuing contract status. She has taught continuously for 10 years in the Osceola County School District, until she was suspended in early January, 1992, as a result of the subject incident. At the time of her suspension, she was completing her third year at Ventura Elementary School, which has only been open for three years. She taught the prior five years at Boggy Creek Elementary School. Respondent has always had good relations with principals, fellow teachers, and parents. Her students stand out when they enter third grade. Respondent has a unique ability to maintain rapport and control in the classroom. She is an enthusiastic teacher who invests considerable energy in teaching. Respondent has enjoyed excellent evaluations. The most revealing indicator of her exceptional value as a teacher rests in the fact that other teachers with children entering second grade select Respondent much more frequently than they select the other second-grade teachers. Respondent has consistently produced students better prepared than their counterparts to meet the academic and social demands of third grade. Since being divorced several years ago, the center of Respondent's life has been teaching. About a year prior to the subject incident, Respondent met Richard Kenny. Mr. Kenny, who apparently lives out of town, shares Respondent's residence when he visits. On December 20, 1991, Mr. Kenny and Respondent invited four casual acquaintances over to Respondent's home for a barbecue. Respondent invited her guests to make themselves at home. At some point after the party began, Respondent and Mr. Kenny re-entered the house. Respondent smelled burning marijuana and, although she saw no one smoking it, immediately informed her guests that she would not tolerate the consumption of marijuana in her home. Offended, the guests left. The following day, Respondent and Mr. Kenny were cleaning the house. Winter break had already begun, and they were planning to drive to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Kenny's family. In the course of cleaning the living room, Respondent found two marijuana pipes that had been left by her guests the prior day. There was no more than trace amounts of marijuana residue in the pipes so, without considerable thought, Respondent took them into her bedroom and placed them on the dresser. It is unclear what Respondent intended to do with the pipes. Her focus at the moment was on completing a hurried housecleaning, so she and Mr. Kenny could get on the road and begin their vacation. She typically placed in her bedroom all misplaced items found during housecleaning. On the evening of December 21, Respondent and Mr. Kenny went out to eat. When they returned, Respondent changed and went to the utility room to turn on the water heater, which she turned off when unneeded in order to save money. She noticed that a window had been broken in the utility room in an apparent attempt to burglarize her home. Respondent called the police. A female sheriff's deputy arrived about five minutes before a male deputy arrived on the scene. The deputies, who are young and inexperienced, remained on the scene together. The male deputy arrived while Respondent was showing the female deputy the utility room, which was at the other end of the house from Respondent's bedroom. Because the house was in the male deputy's territory, he assumed the primary responsibility of investigating and filling out the police report. The male deputy and Mr. Kenny sat down in the living room to fill out the police report. Respondent went back to her bedroom to find a sweater and a lighter in order to smoke a cigarette. Unknown to her, the female deputy had followed her. Standing in the doorway, the deputy saw one of the pipes on the dresser. Returning to the living room, the deputies conferred momentarily about the pipes. The female deputy returned to the bedroom, seized the pipes, brought them out to the living room, and confronted Respondent with them. Respondent initially denied ownership of the pipes. In the course of questioning, Respondent became emotionally upset and, defying the instructions of the deputies, kept walking back into her bedroom. Exasperated, the male deputy, who is 21 years old and had been in law enforcement less than one year, handcuffed Respondent. He and possibly the female deputy expressed a concern, unfounded as it turned out, that Respondent might be returning to her bedroom to destroy evidence. Neither deputy could give credible testimony as to when Respondent was given her Miranda rights. In fact, she was advised of her rights as the handcuffs were applied. The details are unclear as to how an investigation of a house burglary transformed into the arrest of the homeowner without any criminal record for possession of drug paraphernalia in the form of two empty pipes (except for residue) commonly available in the Central Florida area. At some point prior to being handcuffed, Respondent "admitted" that the pipes were hers. But the admission was induced by what can be characterized as nothing less than a fraudulent inducement on the part of one or both deputes, who assured Respondent that if she admitted to ownership of the pipes, nothing would happen. Numerous material inconsistencies exist between the stories of the two deputies. Based on all of the circumstances, the State Attorney's office agreed that Respondent could enter a pretrial diversion program designed to leave Respondent without a criminal record. After being booked and obtaining release on bail, Respondent returned home in the early morning hours of December 22. She and Mr. Kenny proceeded to leave town on their trip. When she returned, Respondent learned that Petitioner had been advised of her arrest. On the second day of school following Winter break (car trouble had delayed Respondent's return by one day), Petitioner informed Respondent that she was suspended without pay due to the incident. Considerable evidence was produced at the hearing concerning a teacher's effectiveness following two versions of the subject facts. The first version is that Respondent possessed the pipes without any intent to smoke marijuana. This is the version adopted in the present case in which one or more guests had, without permission, lighted the pipes to consume marijuana, had been told to leave, and had left the pipes. There was no evidence that such innocent possession of the pipes, together with a subsequent arrest, would impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher, constitute immorality, jeopardize the welfare of Respondent's students, or establish other grounds for the cancellation of Respondent's contract. The second version is that Respondent possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana. Petitioner has failed to establish such guilty possession. Even if Respondent had been guilty of possession of the two pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana, Petitioner has failed to establish, absent any evidence suggesting that this would have been more than an isolated incident, that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be impaired, the welfare of her students would be compromised, or that prevailing community standards of morality would be violated. Petitioner has undertaken considerable efforts at eradicating drug abuse among students. Justifiably concerned that the subject incident could undermine these critically important efforts, Petitioner prudently decided to initiate a process that would trigger an administrative factfinding process in which both sides could present evidence for impartial consideration under principles of law. Not surprisingly, there is no uniformity of opinion as to Respondent's fitness as a teacher had been she been proved to have had guilty possession of the two pipes in an isolated incident. However, several critical facts emerge. First, Respondent is an outstanding teacher. There is no evidence that any aspect of her personal life has ever had an adverse bearing on her ability to teach. Second, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be unaffected, even if Respondent were found guilty of possession of the two pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident. Respondent has for many years maintained firm control of her classroom. There is no evidence that her effectiveness in this regard, especially given the tender age of her students, would be impaired if she were to return to the classroom, even after having been found guilty of possessing the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana. The majority of parents and fellow teachers would not be troubled by Respondent's return to the classroom even if she had possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident. To the contrary, with the exception of managerial-level school administrators, the evidence suggests that all components of the relevant community would want Respondent to be able to bring her considerable talents back to the classroom even if she had been guilty of possessing the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident. The willingness of the parents and teachers to receive Respondent back in the classroom, even if she had been proved guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes in an isolated incident, is based in part upon the recognition of her unique talents working with students. The opinions of many teachers and parents are informed by a willingness to tolerate a considerable separation between a teacher's private and public lives. These persons focus on the work of the person rather than aspects of her personality or personal life when these latter factors do not impact her teaching. Parents and teachers offered a variety of explanations as to why Respondent should be allowed to return to the classroom, even if she were guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes. The most articulate explanation was offered by Elizabeth Williams, who had a daughter in Respondent's class during the 1991-92 schoolyear. She also has another daughter who will be in second grade in the 1993-94 schoolyear. Explaining why Ms. Williams would want her younger daughter to be taught by Respondent, even if she were guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes in an isolated incident, Ms. Williams first described her older daughter's reaction when Respondent was abruptly suspended in January. The daughter told her mother that she wanted to quit going to school. As a mother residing in the neighborhood served by Ventura Elementary School and a teacher at Ventura, Ms. Williams explained that second graders, unlike older students, are not thinking about drugs. Ms. Williams' attitude toward Respondent's return to the classroom, even if Respondent had possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident, reflects conservative values prevalent in the community. Describing herself as a member of a conservative Christian denomination, Ms. Williams, while rejecting a repetitive cycle of sinning followed by repentance, emphasizes the importance of forgiveness in an isolated incident. Expressing this core aspect of the community's moral code, Ms. Williams testified that she would welcome Respondent back to the classroom and send her younger daughter to Respondent's class as long as there was no evidence that the guilty possession was other than an isolated incident. The core community value of forgiveness was recently embraced by the administration in connection with a principal of another school in the district. He was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Unlike Respondent, the principal was convicted of the offense. Petitioner decided in his case to impose a two-week suspension without pay and other relatively minor sanctions. In part, the attitude of the administration, which is an important community with which Respondent must interact in order to be an effective teacher, appears to have been based on a misreading of the attitudes of other members of relevant communities, such as teachers and parents. For example, one representative of Petitioner identified several teachers by name as opponents to Respondent's return to the classroom. But when these persons were called as witnesses, they testified differently. In any event, there is no evidence that Respondent would have trouble working with any member of the administration if she were not found guilty of wrongful possession of the pipes. Even under the guilty-possession scenario, the weight of the evidence is that the administration is properly mindful of the vital need to protect students from the scourge of drug abuse, the support for Respondent from the parent and teaching communities, and the importance of maintaining exceptional teachers. After weighing these factors, even under the wrongful- possession hypothetical scenario, the evidence is that the administration would continue to work professionally with Respondent, despite in an isolated incident, as it has with the principal who was actually convicted of driving under the influence. Petitioner has failed to establish that Respondent was guilty of possession of the two pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana. The evidence shows that she came into possession of the pipes under innocent circumstances so that, notwithstanding her arrest, there is no question surrounding her moral fitness and effectiveness as a teacher or the welfare and safety of her students. Even if Petitioner had proved that Respondent possessed the pipes with an intent to smoke marijuana in an isolated incident, Petitioner failed to prove that, under the circumstances of this case, her contract should be terminated. Even under this scenario, the evidence fails to show that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would have been impaired, she would have been guilty of immoral behavior or moral turpitude, or that the safety, health, or welfare of her students would have been imperilled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Osceola County enter a final order reinstating Lynn Epstein and awarding her full back pay for the time that she would normally have worked following her suspension. ENTERED this 27 day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Chris Colombo, Superintendent Osceola County School Board 817 Osceola Blvd. Kissimmee, FL 34744-4495 Andrew B. Thomas Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 N. Mills Ave. Orlando, FL 32803 Joseph Egan, Jr. Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27 day of July, 1992.
The Issue The issues are framed by a notice to show cause/administrative complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent charging Respondent with violations under 561.29(1)(a) and (c) and 561.58, Florida Statutes. These alleged violations pertain to alleged drug activities on or about the premises for which Respondent holds a license issued by the Petitioner allowing Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages at that licensed premises. Respondent is also accused of maintaining the licensed premises for purposes of illegal drug activities. More particularly Respondent is held accountable for any violations associated with Sections 823.10, 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and (f), and 893.13(2)(a)5., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner regulates the alcoholic beverage industry in Florida pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Among its functions Petitioner issues various licenses which allow alcoholic beverages to be sold. The license number 34-00017, series 1-COP has been issued to Respondent by Petitioner allowing on-premises sales and consumption at Respondent's premises in Jasper, Florida. Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's beverage license for reasons discussed in these facts and the conclusions of law section within the recommended order. Randall R. West is a beverage agent employed by the Petitioner. He was assigned to conduct an undercover investigation at Respondent's licensed premises. That investigation commenced in May, 1991 and was concluded in August, 1991. Over that period West tried to ascertain to what extent drug activities were occurring on or about the licensed premises. West talked to a patron in the licensed premises on May 10, 1991. That patron was Gary Cribbs. The discussion concerned the purchase of cocaine. Cribbs told West that he could get one-half gram of cocaine for $50.00. This discussion took place in the main bar area of the licensed premises in an area near the back pool table. After the arrangement for purchase had been made Cribbs approached West in the licensed premises and told West to follow him to the men's bathroom which was located outside the main bar area. To get there one walks out the back door across an open area to the bathroom which is attached to and part of the building proper. Only a few steps separate the back door from the bathroom. Once inside the men's bathroom, which is lighted, Cribbs produced a small container from his wallet. He asked West if he, Cribbs, could use some of the cocaine that he had produced from the wallet. Cribbs took some of the substance and poured it on the top of the toilet lid, chopped it up and snorted it up his nostrils. Then Cribbs' wife came into the men's bathroom and both Cribbs and his wife consumed the cocaine. The balance of the cocaine was turned over to West. On May 10, 1991 at different times the odor of marijuana could be detected in and around the licensed premises but West was uncertain of its origin. On May 15, 1991 West encountered Lou Brown and Charles Burnett at the licensed premises. Lou Brown arrived on a motorcycle in an area behind the premises. While in this area on a concrete foundation five feet from the building, Brown and Burnett smoked marijuana. West returned to the licensed premises on May 17, 1991 and once inside spoke to Charles Burnett. Burnett had approached the beverage agent reference a purchase of marijuana. This was a follow-up to a previous conversation about purchasing marijuana. Burnett asked West if West was still interested in purchasing marijuana and West replied in the affirmative. Burnett asked West to step outside the bar. Burnett said that he could get marijuana inside that was already weighed for a price of $40.00. West gave Burnett $40.00 while they were standing behind the building. Burnett went back inside the bar proper. West could not see where Burnett went in the bar. In a few minutes Burnett approached West in the bar and asked West to go outside. They went to West's vehicle which was approximately 20 feet from the entrance to the establishment. There Burnett produced a bag of marijuana. On May 17, 1991 when Burnett and West had walked through the premises in the direction of the men's bathroom at the back of the building they had observed several people standing outside the back door smoking a marijuana cigarette. When West attempted to gain entry into the men's bathroom the door was partially opened and he observed two additional persons smoking marijuana in the bathroom. On the evening of May 17, 1991 the Respondent was in the licensed premises. West returned to the licensed premises on May 22, 1991 and engaged in a conversation with Charles Burnett. Burnett asked West if West had a marijuana cigarette and West stated that he did not. Burnett asked West if he wanted to buy some marijuana and West said that he did. Burnett asked how much marijuana West wanted to purchase. West said he wanted a quarter of an ounce. This conversation took place while they were standing at the bar counter and it resulted in a purchase of marijuana off premises. On May 22, 1991 while at the licensed premises while going to use the men's bathroom West observed patrons standing just outside the back door of the building engaged in smoking marijuana. During most of that evening the smell of marijuana pervaded the inside of the premises. On two occasions Frank Bell who was the bar manager on duty was observed going out the back door of the premises and smoking marijuana with patrons while standing in back of the building. At this time the front door and back door to the building were propped open. When West returned to the licensed premises on May 24, 1991 he observed that the Respondent was present. Throughout that evening West observed patrons smoking marijuana behind the building outside the back door. Because of the ventilation system that was within the licensed premises the marijuana smoke from outside was being drawn into the premises such that anyone inside could have detected the marijuana smell if familiar with that aroma. On May 24, 1991 West observed three persons outside the rear door of the premises smoking a marijuana cigarette. Those persons were Greg Sapp, Jeff Gritzs and Jack Walker. On May 24, 1991 West was approached by Burnett and asked if West wanted to buy some marijuana. This conversation took place while West was seated at the bar area within the licensed premises. After that conversation West watched Burnett engage in a conversation with Jack Walker. After Burnett and Walker talked Burnett came back to West and told West that he could get a bag of marijuana for $25.00. This second conversation between Burnett and West took place at the bar within the licensed premises. West gave Burnett $25.00 in furtherance of the discussion they had at the bar and Burnett walked around inside the premises and started to exit the rear of the premises. Believing that Burnett was looking for Jack Walker, West went to Jack Walker who was playing a pinball machine within the licensed premises near the front and told Jack Walker that Charlie was looking for him. Charlie refers to Charles Burnett. Walker and West stepped out the rear of the premises and went to a vehicle that was parked directly behind the premises in an alley. That vehicle was parked about 50 feet away from the licensed premises. Walker got into that vehicle and retrieved a bag of marijuana. Walker than handed the bag of marijuana to Burnett, West handed $25.00 to Burnett and then Burnett handed the $25.00 to Walker. Then a marijuana cigarette was rolled at which time while standing in this area Burnett and Walker smoked a marijuana cigarette. West returned to the licensed premises on June 6, 1991. While there he observed a patron, who was determined to be James Alford, engaged in a drug transaction with another patron, Michael Brooks. This transaction took place in the dance floor area of the licensed premises near the front in which Alford passed Brooks a bag of what by appearance was marijuana. Brooks then came over to the area where West was seated and while standing up and speaking in a somewhat loud voice told another person that he had "a big bag of pot" (pot is a slang expression for marijuana) and he then pulled it halfway out of his pants pocket. Subsequent to the events between Brooks and Alford, West approached Alford and asked Alford if Alford had another bag of marijuana for sale. Alford responded that he did for $35.00. West asked if the purchase could be made for $25.00 and Alford said that he would try. This conversation between West and Alford occurred in the licensed premises near the front door in the area of the front pool table. As a result of this conversation Alford gave West a bag of marijuana while they were standing within 20 feet of the front entrance of the building that is the licensed premises. This exchange took place in plain view of anyone coming in or out of the building. On June 6, 1991 Burnett invited West to smoke a marijuana cigarette with him. In furthering the invitation West followed Burnett to the men's room associated with the licensed premises. When they reached the men's room they encountered a Billy Willis and Kevin Mercer. (In the investigation West had observed Billy Willis play records and tapes in the licensed premises in the manner of a disc jockey and had seen Willis turn off the lights at the licensed premises. This does not lead to the conclusion that Willis was an employee there.) The back door was open and Willis was holding a plastic bag with what appeared to West to be marijuana. Willis was putting this substance in a rolling paper. Burnett produced something that he referred to as hash or hashish and this substance was put together with Willis's apparent marijuana and formed into a cigarette by Mercer. The marijuana cigarette that was then passed around and smoked by Burnett, Willis and Mercer, all standing at the back door of the premises just outside, within two feet of the building. On June 6, 1991 while inside the licensed premises Burnett approached West and again asked West if he wanted to step outside and smoke another marijuana cigarette. Burnett and West exited the rear of the premises and encountered a man identified as Austin. Austin produced a marijuana cigarette at which time the cigarette was smoked by Austin, Burnett, Willis and a person named Doug Parr. This occurred within twenty feet of the rear door of the licensed premises. On June 7, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and engaged in a conversation with Kevin Mercer about purchasing a bag of marijuana and Mercer advised that he could get the marijuana but it would be later before he could obtain it. This conversation took place while the two were standing near the front pool table of the licensed premises. West was then approached by a white male patron who introduced himself as Bruce Adams. At this time West was seated on a stool inside the dance floor area of the licensed premises. Adams told West that he had a marijuana cigarette and invited West to go out and smoke it with him, assuming that West had rolling paper. After this conversation West and Adams stepped out the back door of the premises. Adams produced a plastic bag of marijuana. A marijuana cigarette was rolled at which time Adams smoked the marijuana cigarette and there were several other unidentified persons all standing around that engaged in smoking the marijuana cigarette. This event between Adams and the other patrons took place approximately three feet from the door of the premises. On June 7, 1991 Kevin Mercer approached West while West was standing near the front pool table and asked West if West still wanted a bag of marijuana that had been discussed earlier that evening. West replied in the affirmative. West and Mercer then stepped outside the front entrance at which time Mercer produced a bag of marijuana and handed it to West and West paid Mercer $20.00 for the marijuana. This took place within ten feet of the front door on the sidewalk adjacent to the licensed premises. This transaction was in plain view. On June 8, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and while there stepped out back to a car that was parked behind the licensed premises in the alley. Approximately nine people were seated in that car. They were engaged in smoking a substance that was said to be hash or hashish. They were using a coke can converted into a pipe. There was a conversation that went on in which Jack Walker said the cost of a block of this substance being described as hash would be $150.00. After the events outside with the nine persons in the automobile West returned to the licensed premises where Billy Willis was sitting at the disc jockey booth playing records and tapes. West engaged in a conversation with Willis and asked if he had any hash for sale. Willis advised that he had a small amount which he produced while seated at the D.J. booth and sold to West for $10.00. Later a conversation took place between West and Michael Brooks while seated in a booth across from a bar in reference to hash. West asked Brooks if he had any hash for sale and West advised that he did and directed West to follow him to the men's bathroom. While in the bathroom Brooks produced a block of suspect hash and West told him he would take $20.00 worth. Brooks took West's knife and cut off a chunk of the suspect hash and handed it to West. Willis and Brooks had been among the nine persons in the vehicle located out behind the licensed premises earlier in the evening. That's how West became familiar with the idea of hash and its possible availability for sale. Later laboratory testing of the substances which Willis and Brooks sold to West did not reveal that the substances were hashish. Later on June 8, 1991 West engaged in a conversation with Kevin Mercer while standing near the pool table. This conversation was about the purchase of marijuana. West gave Mercer $60.00 in advance to buy marijuana which Mercer said he could get. Subsequently Mercer delivered marijuana to West outside the front door of the licensed premises within a foot of the door. On June 8, 1991 West spoke to Jack Walker about purchasing marijuana. They went out back within ten feet of the back door and West paid $80.00 to Walker for the purchase of marijuana. West went back in the licensed premises on June 8, 1991 and engaged in a conversation with Michael Brooks. This conversation took place while seated in a booth across from the bar area. Brooks invited West to go and smoke hash with him. They exited the back door along with another patron named Robert Corey. They stood directly behind the men's room where the roof overhangs. Brooks had a coke can stashed in the rafters above the woodwork of this overhang. That coke can had been converted into a pipe. At that point Corey and Brooks smoked suspect hash. West had been advised that it was hash and it had that appearance. In addition to the events that have already been described concerning June 8, 1991, West made observations of several groups of people at different times smoking marijuana behind the licensed premises and during these occasions the aroma of the marijuana could be detected inside the licensed premises proper. West returned to the licensed premises on June 13, 1991. While there he observed Billy Willis standing out back near the men's bathroom. Willis advised West that he had enough marijuana for a marijuana cigarette and asked West if he had rolling paper. West gave Willis rolling paper at which time a marijuana cigarette was rolled and Willis smoked it. While Willis was engaged in smoking the marijuana cigarette, Frank Bell, the bar manager, exited the back door of the premises and looked over at West and Willis. West and Willis greeted Bell and Bell stepped back into the premises. Later on June 13, 1991 while inside the licensed premises seated at the bar, Charles Burnett advised West that he had marijuana. West and Burnett went outside near the men's bathroom and Burnett rolled a marijuana cigarette and smoked it. West observed the smoke from the marijuana cigarette wafting into the licensed premises. On June 13, 1991 while in the licensed premises West asked Jack Walker if Walker had marijuana to sell and Walker replied in the affirmative. Walker said that the marijuana had to be weighed. Later Walker was seated at the bar and West approached Walker and asked about the marijuana purchase. Walker advised West to step out back. Walker and West went into the men's bathroom where Walker produced the plastic bag of marijuana and a set of handscales. Walker weighed the bag of marijuana and advised West that it would cost $45.00. West paid Walker $40.00 and gave him the balance of the money later. On June 13, 1991 while seated at the bar next to Amy West, a patron, the female patron advised West that she had some "speed" also known as amphetamines. West asked the patron how much it would cost. The patron said it would be free. She put her purse on top of the bar and retrieved a pill bottle and produced a couple of white pills. She handed West four of the pills and told him that they were "white crosses". Later laboratory testing revealed that this was not a controlled substance. The pills were epherdrine. In a further conversation on June 13, 1991 between West and Amy West while seated at the bar, discussion was made about cocaine. Amy West asked the beverage agent if the beverage agent would sponsor half the money necessary to buy half a gram of cocaine. The beverage agent said that he would and was told by Amy West that the beverage agent's share would cost $50.00. West, the beverage agent, put three twenty-dollar bills on top of the bar and asked Frank Bell for change for one of those twenty-dollar bills and then slid $50.00 across the bar to Amy West. She took the money and handed it to Gary Wayne Boyd who was seated next to her. Later Boyd asked beverage agent West to step out front with him. Beverage agent West, Amy West and Boyd then went out front to a pickup truck that was parked there. Boyd and Amy West were seated in the pickup truck and Boyd produced a quantity of suspect cocaine. Boyd divided the cocaine and delivered approximately half of that cocaine to beverage agent West. This took place within 40 or 50 feet of the front door. On June 14, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and while in the premises seated at the bar engaged in a conversation with Kevin Mercer about the purchase of marijuana. He gave $40.00 to Mercer to purchase the marijuana. Later Mercer delivered the marijuana to West while standing outside the front door of the licensed premises within about 40 feet of that door. The delivery took place in a corridor between the licensed premises and another building. Later on June 14, 1991 West engaged in a conversation with Jack Walker while seated at the bar counter. Walker had squeezed between West and the Respondent at the bar. At that time Walker told West that he had a few bags of marijuana for sale at $50.00. West and the Respondent were seated and Walker placed himself between those two individuals. Walker was not seated. West had a further conversation with Walker at the back pool table and they departed to an area behind the men's bathroom at the licensed premises. There they encountered a man named Bart Harvey. Harvey gave two bags of marijuana to Walker who in turn gave the marijuana to West and West paid Walker $50.00. On June 14, 1991 during the course of the evening West observed the odor of marijuana inside the licensed premises and he observed persons outside the premises smoking marijuana. The aroma of marijuana was even noticeable in the lobby of the licensed premises because of the ventilation system and during this time Respondent and his wife were present in the licensed premises. On June 15, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and engaged in a conversation with James Thomas Alford concerning the purchase of marijuana. This conversation took place in front of the premises between two parked cars. West gave Alford $50.00. Alford later approached West while West was in the licensed premises and asked West to step outside with him. Alford and West stepped outside to an area between two cars parked in front of the premises at which time Alford delivered a bag of marijuana to West. This location was within 30 feet of the front entrance to the licensed premises. A patron saw this delivery being made and asked if he could purchase marijuana from the beverage agent. On June 19, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and engaged in a conversation with Amy West. Amy West asked the beverage agent if he wanted to smoke a marijuana cigarette with her at which time Amy West, Charlie Burnett, Gary Wayne Boyd, and the beverage agent exited to the rear of the premises. They walked around behind the men's bathroom. They then came back in the licensed premises and went to the dance floor area side. When they entered the area of the dance floor inside the premises, Frank Bell, Jack Walker, and another unidentified white female and an unidentified white male were there smoking marijuana. Another marijuana cigarette was rolled by the unidentified white male and it was smoked. While they were in this location a patron Bobby Don Staten banged on the door and hollered out "Everybody put your hands on top of the bar." This person Staten was pretending to be a police officer. On June 20, 1991 West went back to the licensed premises. While there he stepped out the back door near the men's bathroom and observed Frank Bell and Lou Brown engaged in smoking a marijuana cigarette. This was approximately three feet from the exit at the back. On June 20, 1991 West engaged in a conversation with Kevin Mercer reference the purchase of marijuana. This was related to a purchase of marijuana off premises. This conversation with Kevin Mercer took place in the area where Lou Brown and Frank Bell had been observed smoking marijuana. The conversation between West and Mercer was overheard by Frank Bell, the bar manager. On June 24, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and while seated at the bar was approached by Gary Wayne Boyd. Boyd told West that he had cocaine for sale. Later Boyd came back to the bar where West was seated and motioned for West to follow him outside. They went to the men's bathroom. There West observed Robert Corey and Charles Burnett. Burnett was sitting backwards on the toilet making lines of what appeared to be cocaine on the tank lid to the toilet. West considered this to be cocaine given its appearance. While Burnett was conducting this activity Boyd and West were standing at the doorway. Boyd produced a white powdery substance and West asked him how much it would cost to purchase that substance. Boyd said that a gram would cost $100.00. West told Boyd that he wanted to buy a gram and gave Boyd $100.00 to purchase the cocaine Boyd handed him. On June 25, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and was approached by Billy Willis while seated at the bar. Willis advised that he had a joint, meaning a marijuana cigarette. He invited West to step out back with him for the purpose of smoking marijuana. While standing just outside the back door of the premises Willis, Charles Burnett and another patron identified as Farmer smoked the marijuana cigarette. At that time the back door was closed; however, patrons were exiting the back door to use the men's bathroom. West returned to the licensed premises on July 17, 1991. During that evening West and Jack Walker stepped out the back door of the premises. On the way out Walker made a motion for Walt the bartender on duty to come with West and Walker. While standing just outside the back door Walker produced a small amount of marijuana, rolled a marijuana cigarette and Walt and Walker engaged in smoking the marijuana. They were within three feet of the back door. On July 18, 1991 while at the licensed premises West went to the men's bathroom and observed Robert Corey and an unidentified white female behind the premises engaged in smoking marijuana. Corey and this woman were within fifteen feet of the door. The odor of the marijuana being smoked could be detected inside of the premises. Corey and the woman were not trying to hide their activities in smoking the marijuana. West returned to the licensed premises on July 19, 1991. He engaged in conversation with Jack Walker about the purchase of a quarter pound of marijuana while standing at the front pool table of the licensed premises. Later, while seated in the dance floor area of the bar, Walker asked West if he had a pocket knife. West replied in the affirmative and was told to follow Walker outside that he had something to share with him. They went into the men's bathroom at the licensed premises and while there Walker produced a quantity of what appeared to be cocaine and made it into lines on the toilet lid. Walker told West that this substance was cocaine. Walker snorted the suspect cocaine up his nose and they reentered the licensed premises. On July 20, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and went with Charles Burnett, Corey and Farmer out back. While outside near the back door Corey produced a marijuana cigarette while standing near the air conditioned compressor. Lou Brown and two other unidentified persons were already in the area. Those three individuals were engaged in passing a marijuana cigarette between them and were smoking it. While these activities were occurring other patrons stepped out of the back door of the premises either to use the bathroom or just to look around. The patrons were in a position to observe the marijuana being smoked. The back door was also propped open. On July 22, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises. He was seated at the bar and there were only about five patrons present at that time. The patron known as Butch Brown entered the premises with his wife and hollered out "Who's got the best dope around." Jack Walker walked up to Butch Brown and produced a marijuana cigarette from his shirt pocket. This action by Walker could be clearly observed. Brown then produced his own marijuana cigarette from his shirt pocket. Brown and Walker compared the marijuana cigarettes while standing at the bar. Walker then said in a voice loud enough to be heard that when this "joint was gone he had a bag that he would smoke." These events took place in the licensed premises standing at the corner of the bar near the front pool table. Shortly thereafter West, Walker, Brown and Burnett went out behind the men's bathroom at which time the marijuana cigarette that Brown had earlier and the marijuana cigarette that Walker had earlier were smoked by Walker, Brown and Burnett. They were standing under the roof overhang near the bathroom. On July 23, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and while standing out back he engaged in a conversation with Jack Walker. Charles Burnett approached them and produced a marijuana cigarette and smoked it. This was within ten feet of the rear entrance to the licensed premises. Later on July 23, 1991 West and Burnett were seated at the bar when they were approached by Walker who asked them to step out back with him. The three of them entered the men's bathroom at which time Walker produced a quantity of suspect cocaine. Walker put the suspect cocaine on the back of the toilet at which time Burnett began chopping the suspect cocaine into a finer powder and putting it into lines. Walker and Burnett inhaled the suspect cocaine up their nostrils. While this was occurring the door to the bathroom was closed. While in there someone banged on the door and said, "Hey, now ya'll get out of there with them drugs." On July 23, 1991 while back inside the licensed premises Jack Walker was seated at the corner of the bar near the front pool table Walker motioned West to come over to him at which time Walker handed West a bag of marijuana in an open manner. This was done by pulling the bag of marijuana out of his pants pocket and handing it to West. This transfer occurred at the corner of the bar near the front pool table. West then stepped out back of the licensed premises with the bag of marijuana at which time Charles Burnett rolled a marijuana cigarette from that bag. Kevin Mercer and Charles Burnett engaged in smoking the marijuana cigarette. This took place within ten feet of the back door of the licensed premises. On July 23, 1991 when West reentered the licensed premises Burnett had the previously described bag of marijuana that belonged to Jack Walker. Burnett was seen to walk over to where Walker was seated and in an open manner handed the bag to Walker. On July 31, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises and was seated at the bar with Charles Burnett on his right and Jack Walker to Burnett's right. West overheard a conversation between Burnett and Walker in which Burnett was asking Walker about where something was. He observed Burnett walk to the dance floor area of the premises which was closed. Burnett then came back from the dance floor area and handed the person attending the bar a package wrapped up with a wrapper made of a brown paper bag. He asked the person tending bar to put it in the microwave for ten seconds. The bartender placed the package in the microwave in the bar area for ten seconds. After ten seconds he opened the door and smoke rolled out of the microwave and the smoke revealed the presence of marijuana which pervaded the licensed premises. Burnett then took possession of the marijuana. Burnett stated that a hole needed to be bored into the package of marijuana until his hands could cool down and then Burnett placed the package in his pants pocket. Frank Bell, who was the bar manager, was present playing the pinball machine. When the odor of marijuana started he made a comment to Burnett to not be cooking that marijuana in his microwave anymore. On August 2, 1991 West went back to the licensed premises and noticed that Respondent was present. On that evening Walker approached West while West was standing at the pinball game and asked West if he wanted to buy an ounce of marijuana. West replied in the affirmative. Later Walker and West stepped out back of the licensed premises and while standing there Walker produced a plastic bag containing suspect marijuana and West purchased it from him for $65.00. There was a pickup truck parked next to the back door and the purchase was made while standing at the back of the pickup truck. On August 3, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises. He saw Lou Brown, a patron, arrive at the premises on his motorcycle. Several other patrons and West stepped outside to take a look at the motorcycle Brown was riding. The motorcycle was parked directly in front of the premises. At that time Lou Brown produced a marijuana cigarette and lit it and began smoking it and passing it to Charlie Burnett to smoke as well as Farmer. Farmer was squatting down next to the front door. Frank Bell opened the door, poked his head out, looked at the motorcycle and said "nice bike." When Bell did this, Farmer who was engaged in smoking the marijuana cigarette, had his head turned toward Frank Bell and blew marijuana smoke in the direction of Bell. On August 3, 1991 West went to the men's bathroom and saw several patrons smoking marijuana just outside the back door. He made a similar observation when going to the men's bathroom later on that evening. West returned to the licensed premises on August 8, 1991. Burnett invited West to step out back of the premises to smoke marijuana with him. Once out back Burnett produced a bag of marijuana and a marijuana cigarette was rolled. Farmer and a white female identified as "Ditty-Bop" joined in with Burnett in smoking marijuana. They were within ten feet of the back door. On August 8, 1991 Michael Brooks invited West to step out back of the premises to smoke marijuana with him. They were accompanied by Billy Willis and once outside Willis and Brooks went in the men's bathroom and with the door opened rolled a marijuana cigarette. Once the cigarette was rolled Brooks and Willis while standing behind the premises just outside the back door smoked the marijuana cigarette. They were within two or three feet of the back door when smoking the marijuana. On August 9, 1991 West returned to the licensed premises. At that time he saw the Respondent and the Respondent's wife present. He also observed Frank Bell open the front and back doors and turn on the ventilating fans. When this was done West observed people standing outside the back door. He also observed that the smell of marijuana was sucked into the premises by the ventilating fans. On August 9, 1991 West and Burnett went to the rear of the premises near the men's bathroom. Burnett produced a plastic bag of marijuana. A cigarette was rolled and Burnett smoked it. While Burnett and West were standing right at the corner of the men's bathroom, West observed the Respondent exit the premises. The Respondent entered the men's bathroom, exited the bathroom and looked back at West and Burnett. When the Respondent looked back Burnett was engaged in smoking the marijuana cigarette. Burnett was smoking the cigarette in an open manner. When Burnett would exhale the smoke of the marijuana it entered in through the back door of the premises. Respondent took no action to stop Burnett from smoking marijuana. On August 9, 1991 while West was standing in front of the licensed premises, he ordered a bag of marijuana from Kevin Mercer and paid $25.00 in advance. Back inside the licensed premises seated near the lift windows inside the dance floor area Mercer approached West and asked him to step out back. They went out the back of the licensed premises and near the back door Mercer delivered a bag of marijuana to West. The delivery was made in an open manner within one foot of the exit on the side of the licensed premises where the D.J. booth is located. On August 10, 1991 West entered the licensed premises and engaged in a conversation with Walker while standing next to the pool table. This discussion involved the purchase of marijuana. Walker told West that he had a bag of marijuana in his pocket and would have to look at it and see what it was worth. Walker and West stepped out back of the premises just outside the door. Walker produced a plastic bag of marijuana and told West that it would cost $20.00. West paid $20 for the marijuana. They were within two feet of the back door at that time. Later on August 10, 1991 Burnett asked West to go outside and smoke a marijuana cigarette with him. As they were exiting West leaned over and told Frank Bell, bar manager, that West and Burnett were going outside to smoke a joint, meaning marijuana. Bell replied "good, I'll be right out". Later Burnett, Robert Corey and Frank Bell engaged in smoking a marijuana cigarette outside. West returned to the bar on August 15, 1991. When he entered the bar the man named Walt was tending the bar. There were approximately eight patrons present. West ordered a beer and asked Walt where everybody was located. Walt explained that people were in the other portion of the licensed premises known as the dance floor, which was shut off and the door closed and the windows that separate the dance floor from the other part of the licensed premises were pulled down. West entered the dance floor area and saw several patrons. Those patrons were at the back of the dance floor near a service bar. Among them was Jack Walker. He commented that he had a bag of "pot," meaning marijuana, to smoke a joint from. Walker was trying to explain to Charlie Burnett where the bag of "pot" was. He explained that it was in a Budweiser beer box next to the bar on the other side, that is the main part of the premises. Burnett was having difficulty understanding Walker's directions and West offered to go get the marijuana. He walked over to the main part of the bar where approximately six patrons were present. He went to the boxes that were stacked in the area of the bar in the main part of the licensed premises. The box that he was looking for was among boxes where empty beer bottles are kept. He found the marijuana in a baggie and removed it and observed Walt the bartender watching what he was doing. He retrieved the bag of marijuana with his left hand and carried it around the main bar area back to the dance floor area. Once back in the dance floor area a white female patron named Sherry rolled a marijuana cigarette on top of the service bar in the dance floor area. That cigarette was then passed around and smoked. Eventually the persons in the dance floor area went back to the main part of the bar. At that time, Walt the bartender commented that the smell of marijuana was stinking up the bar. His reference was to "pot" smelling up the bar, meaning marijuana. Walt then went and turned the big ventilating fan on located in the wall and this cleared the marijuana smoke out. Later Burnett asked West to go smoke a marijuana cigarette with him at which time Burnett and West went through a door at the back of the dance floor area. Walt opened the door behind them in the dance floor area and told West and Burnett not to smoke any more dope back there. He said that if you want to roll one back there you can roll it but don't smoke it back there. Burnett could not find any rolling papers to prepare a marijuana cigarette so West and Burnett exited the dance floor area and went back to the main area of the bar. Subsequently, Burnett, Walker, Billy Willis, Sherry and West entered the dance floor area of the premises and Burnett produced a marijuana cigarette and rolling papers and a marijuana cigarette was rolled and smoked. There were times other than the dates described when beverage agent West entered the licensed premises in the period May through August, 1991 and nothing irregular occurred. On the Friday nights when Respondent would be in attendance there was a great deal of noise inside the licensed premises. Concerning an awareness of the possible problems with drugs in the licensed premises, on April 19, 1990 Chief of Police John Franklin Osborn of Jasper, Florida spoke with the Respondent at Respondent's instigation. Chief Osborn also spoke with the sheriff's office of Hamilton County about getting an undercover officer to examine that potential problem. Osborn had previously spoken with the Respondent in November or December, 1990 about having an undercover person in the bar to look at the issue of possible drug activities there. At that time Osborn checked with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office about an undercover officer doing surveillance. An undercover surveillance or investigation by the sheriff's office was not conducted. In conversation Respondent had told Osborn that if sales of drugs were going on in the licensed premises the Respondent wanted to do something about it. Osborn described the alley behind the licensed premises as one in which lighting is available at the local telephone office at the opposite end of the alley from the licensed premises. Osborn is also aware that a light exists in the men's bathroom of the licensed premises which provides light immediately outside that convenience. There are no lights in the alley proper. His description of the lighting is that it is medium quality lighting and that at night you can identify people if you are in the alley but if you are outside the alley you cannot look into the alley and identify who the people are. Osborn established that no drug arrest had been made in the licensed premises other than arrests associated with the case that has been described here. Osborn heard the Respondent tell Jack Walker to leave the licensed premises on one occasion, but the Respondent allowed Jack Walker back into the bar at a later date. The nature of the patrol activity around the bar area was once on Friday and once on Saturday night. This refers to patrol activity by the Jasper, Florida Police Department. Margaret Bell, who is the sister-in-law of Frank Bell, had managed the licensed premises in the past, as recently as the summer of 1990. She describes the Respondent's instructions to her were that she not allow drugs, unauthorized liquor, or fighting, and to call Respondent if problems occurred. In her experience the Respondent would be at the bar on Friday night. Respondent would return on Sunday or Monday morning to check up on the week's business. Frank Bell who worked at the bar with his sister-in-law, Margaret Bell, had been informed of Respondent's conditions about misconduct in the bar. Frank Bell was recommended to replace his sister-in-law as bar manager and was the manager in the period of the subject investigation. The recommendation came from Margaret Bell. Margaret Bell worked on July 5 and 6, 1991 as an employee under the management of Frank Bell and did not observe any problems in the bar. She established that Billy Willis is not an employee of the bar but someone who was allowed to play the records and tapes as disc jockey and would be given chips and cokes in return for his service. Margaret Bell identified that on Friday and Saturday night with the noise level up you might have to yell at the person next to you to be heard above the din. Margaret Bell identified that to get the kind of ventilation necessary to deal with the number of people in the bar in the summer that the employees would open the front door in the dance area and the back door on the main bar side. Margaret Bell states that she has smelled marijuana in the bar when the exhaust fans were on and had told patrons to leave from the area behind the bar. She also told persons out front who were smoking marijuana to leave. These requests to have these persons leave were in accordance with the Respondent's instructions to her. Margaret Bell has also seen Frank Bell ask patrons to leave five or six times. Margaret Bell did not call law enforcement when she smelled marijuana out back which had occurred on seven to nine occasions. Additionally, she did not post signs about drug usage or receive any specific instructions about drug matters beyond those described before concerning Respondent's remarks to her. Margaret Bell was told that Frank Bell had smoked marijuana during the period when she and her husband had first been married but she had not witnessed this personally. Frank Bell was the bar manager from August, 1990 to August 23, 1991. His instructions as bar manager, based upon what the Respondent told him about management, was that no drugs and no unauthorized liquor would be allowed in the bar. Respondent made mention of those basic rules on many occasions. Frank Bell identified the fact that he had told people to leave the outside area who were smoking marijuana. In this connection Frank Bell had asked people to leave the back door area on many occasions. The record does not reveal that he had called for law enforcement assistance to deal with this problem. Frank Bell didn't post signs concerning prohibition against drug usage in the licensed premises. Frank Bell's arrangement with the Respondent concerning his employment status was that he would share 50% of the net profits for his work as manager. Frank Bell identified that Jack Walker, Gary Wayne Boyd, Billy Willis, Kevin Mercer, and Charles Burnett are customers of the licensed premises. Frank Bell has also experienced the exhaust fans pulling marijuana smoke into the licensed premises. Frank Bell was arrested based upon facts that are described, and charged with a criminal law violation based on those facts. Respondent has been associated with the establishment for 33 years and has been the licensee since 1977. His practice in the past has been to hire someone to run the licensed premises and to split the profits with them. He is typically at the licensed premises on Friday. His instructions for management are no drugs, unauthorized liquor, fighting or card games. Respondent corroborates that the noise level on Friday night is loud and that you need to be close to the person that you are conversing with to hear and be heard. Respondent has never overheard people discussing drug transactions inside the bar. In the one instance where a transaction was discussed in his presence he did not hear because he has impaired hearing. Respondent in describing his conversations with Chief Osborn spoke in terms of having the Chief check on the possibility of drugs at the licensed premises, although Respondent says he has never seen drugs in his business. He has smelled the marijuana smoke in the place. Respondent has smelled the odor of marijuana on three or four occasions and that led him to tell Frank Bell or the person running the bar to tell people to leave who were smoking the marijuana. Again, the record does not reveal that Respondent sought the assistance of law enforcement on these occasions. Respondent has never seen a drug transaction on or about the premises. Respondent's attendance at the bar is usually from 7:00 p.m. until closing on Friday nights. Otherwise he just drops in occasionally. Respondent has not put up lights out back so that patrons could be seen more clearly and their activities monitored, nor has he put signs up concerning the prohibition against drugs and he has not asked the Petitioner, local police department, or sheriff's office to talk to employees about drug problems.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a final order be entered which revokes license no. 34-00017, Series 1-COP held by the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5349 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is subordinate to facts found, except with the reference to Billy Willis as being an employee of the Respondent. That reference and others that suggest that Willis was an employee is incorrect. Paragraphs 7-37 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the facts were not presented to show that the odor of burning marijuana was prevalent inside the licensed premises. Paragraphs 39-47 are subordinate to facts found as is Paragraph 48 with the exception of the proposed fact that Respondent did a "double take when he came out of the men's restroom." That is rejected. Paragraphs 49-51 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 52 is rejected. Paragraphs 53-57 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 58 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 59 and 60 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 61-63 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 64 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 65-69 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 70 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts Paragraph 1 in the initial sentence is subordinate to facts found. The balance of that paragraph is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. As to Paragraph 2 while the 1977 sketch of the licensed premises that was filed with the application did not show the men's bathroom in the same location as it was in 1991, the men's bathroom in 1991 is still considered part of the licensed premises. Paragraphs 3-11 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is rejected. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 14 is rejected in that Chief Osborn described the available lighting behind the licensed premises as moderate. Paragraphs 15-18 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 is rejected in that Respondent indicated that he had some belief that marijuana was used outside the premises on occasion based upon its odor. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 21 is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy C. Waller, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1011 Jasper, FL 32052 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue Whether just cause exists for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Keven Renken (Respondent) was employed under a professional services contract as a teacher at the Pinellas County Center for the Arts Program (PCCA) at Gibbs High School. On February 11, 1994, the Respondent arrived at about 7:30 a.m. to teach a first period acting class. Prior to the start of classes, another PCCA teacher approached the Respondent and requested permission to bring his class to the Respondent's to view a videotape made by one of the Respondent's students. Although the Respondent apparently was unaware of thee videotape or its content, he consented to permit the other class to view the film in his classroom. After the last bell and before the class began, a student, Marshall Bross, approached the Respondent and requested permission to play a videotape to the class. The student told the Respondent it was an anti-drinking tape. The Respondent granted the student's request. The Respondent did not preview the tape. On February 11, 1994, the Respondent's first period acting class contained not more than five students, each about 15- 16 years old. Many students were absent, apparently because they had participated in a performance on the previous evening. The Respondent asserts that he had intended for students to rehearse script lines during class but was not able to do so because of the low number of students present. During the time that Bross was cueing the tape in the machine, the television set was turned away from the Respondent's view. When the tape was ready for viewing, Bross turned the machine towards the classroom seats. At the time the tape began to be played to the class, the Respondent was present in the room. The television was visible from the Respondent's desk, where he sat doing paperwork. The volume on the television was audible in the classroom. The Respondent asserts that he did not hear the tape because he was concentrating on paperwork. The videotape shows an intoxicated male PCCA student (victim) being physically and verbally abused by other male students. The tape, about 23 minutes long, was produced by Bross on February 10, 1994. About five minutes into the tape, the other teacher and his students joined the Respondent's class to view the tape. The tape was rewound to the beginning of the relevant segments and the viewing began again. The tape shows the victim, intoxicated to the point of being unresponsive, lying in a puddle of (what appears to be presumably his own) vomit. He is dragged across a floor and out a door, where he is rolled off an elevated porch onto the ground. As the victim regains consciousness, he is repeatedly doused with buckets of water, with flour and with what is identified as urine from a cup. At one point, he stands barefooted on the wet concrete porch next to the electrical connection to the house. He is sprayed with water from a garden hose. During much of the victim's conscious moments, he shouts and screams at his tormentors to stop the abuse. Later on the tape, the victim, again unconscious, is shown lying in a filled bathtub as the other students put what appears to be shaving cream and cosmetics on him. Finally, the boys perch on the edge of the bathtub, the camera shot showing the victim lying between the legs of each boy, as each attempts, and some succeed, to urinate into the tub and on the unconscious victim. During the tape, the scenes are loudly narrated by Bross. The verbal abuse of the victim is clearly audible. The dialogue is often harsh and profane. It was possible for the Respondent to see and hear the television from his location. At some point during the showing of the tape, the Respondent left the room to copy some documents. The students remained in the supervision of the other teacher who was watching the tape. The Respondent was in the room for approximately ten minutes of the 23 minute video. The Respondent viewed portions of the tape. Although he claims he was unaware of what he was seeing, the Respondent saw the trail of green vomit across the floor where the student had been dragged. The Respondent saw the victim being hosed off. The Respondent saw the scenes where the boys stood on the edge of the bathtub. The Respondent saw the view of the victim lying between the legs of the boys as each attempted to urinate on the victim. Although he did not know the student's name, the Respondent saw enough of the tape to recognize the victim as a student at PCCA. The Respondent was sufficiently aware of the video's content to comment towards the end of the tape that it was "sad" and to inquire of Bross as to the victim's condition. The entire videotape was shown to the first period students present in the classroom. The Respondent heard students commenting about the film while it was being played. Subsequent to the showing in first period, the tape remained in the possession of the student who made and showed the video. At the break between first and second periods, the victim became aware that the tape had been shown and went to the Respondent's classroom. As he entered the classroom, no teachers were present and the tape was being played again. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent entered the classroom and asked the victim how he was feeling. Humiliated and embarrassed, the victim left the classroom. There is no credible evidence that the victim of the abuse consented to the abuse or to the taping of the activity. There is no credible evidence that the victim consented to the playing of the tape for other students inside or outside of the classroom. There is no evidence that the victim was aware of the images continued on the tape. Shortly after the victim left the room, a guidance counselor became aware of the situation and went to the classroom, where the tape was still being played. No teachers were present. The counselor saw enough of the tape to become aware of its contents and instructed the students to stop the tape and take it to his office. Just before the start of second period, the Respondent reentered the classroom and saw the tape still playing, at which point he instructed the student responsible to turn the tape off. Prior to the start of second period, the Respondent made no effort to stop the playing of the tape or to confiscate it from the students. By letter of March 17, 1994, the Respondent was notified that the superintendent would recommend to the school board that he be suspended without pay from a period of ten days. The grounds for the suspension are identified as follows; ...on February 11, 1994, during your first period class you allowed a student to show a tape unpreviewed by you to your class and another teacher and his class. The video contained denigrating and humiliating scenes of several students physically abusing the inebriated student. While viewing the tape yourself, you allowed your students to continue viewing it and failed to confiscate the tape. Your actions constitute just cause for this suspension pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. This matter was made aware to the public through an article in the April 8, 1994 issue of the St. Petersburg Times. At the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the Respondent received a copy of Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. At a meeting with Gibbs/PCCA faculty, the principal of the school reviewed the document. The Respondent was present at the meeting. According to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, a teacher "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety" and "shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." According to both the principal of Gibbs/PCCA and the superintendent of the Pinellas County School System, the Respondent's failure to monitor or stop the playing of the videotape, or to confiscate the tape from the students, is sufficiently serious so as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Keven Renken. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2010 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 26. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are set forth in unnumbered paragraphs. The paragraphs in section II, "Proposed Statement of the Facts" have been consecutively numbered for purposes of these ruling. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Reference to pornographic material on tape is rejected, irrelevant. It was not viewed by the students. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The Respondent was in the room for a significant portion of the tape, as set forth in the findings. The evidence does not establish, as the proposed finding suggests, that the Respondent left the room immediately after the other teacher arrived. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The Respondent was in the room for a significant portion of the tape, as set forth in the findings. He viewed and heard enough of the tape to remark that it was "sad" and to recognize the student being abused. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The cited testimony related to the timing of the entry of the victim into the classroom is not credible. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The cited testimony related to the timing of the entry of the guidance counselor into the classroom is not credible. DOAH CASE NO. 94-2010 COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County P. O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Marguerite Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steve Martin, d/b/a The Hustler Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 68-929, series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 5748 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges contained in the Notice To Show Cause and at the time of the final hearing. On November 10, 1984, Respondent received an official notice from the Division that charges would be filed against him for violations of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On January 11, 1985, Deputy Sheriff Bernie Vanderweert entered the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. He observed patrons engaged in playing pool for money in the presence of the bartender Jim Sealmayer. Deputy Vanderweert played pool with bartender Sealmayer for $1.00 to $2.00 a game. On January 17, 1985, Deputy Venderweert again observed patrons playing pool for money inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. The pool table was in view of the bar, where bartender Dory Korowold was on duty. Deputy Vanderweert played dice at the bar with bartender Dory for drinks. On January 18, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played the game of pool with various patrons for money. He additiogally gambled with bartender Jim Sealmayer on the pool table. On January 24, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed patrons playing pool for money inside The Hustler Bar and himself gambled on the pool table with patron Greg Sullivan. On January 29, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert gambled on the pool table with other patrons inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar while bartender Dory was on duty. On January 31, 1985, Beverage Investigator James Woodrow visited the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. He overheard licensee Steve Martin discuss wagering on games of pool with a patron named Leo. Martin and Leo agreed to play pool for $25.00 a game. Investigator Woodrow observed Martin and Leo playing pool, but did not actually see an exchange of money. On February 5, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed patrons gambling on games of pool inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar and himself wagered on a game of pool with patron Greg Sullivan. Dory Korswald was on duty behind the bar during this activity. Deputy Vanderweert observed the bartender Dory smoke a marijuana cigarette inside the premises with several patrons. Vanderweert approached Greg Sullivan and asked if he had a marijuana cigarette. When Greg responded that he did, Vanderweert purchased a marijuana cigarette from him while seated at the bar in the vicinity of bartender Dory and other patrons. On February 7, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert gambled on games of pool with patron Sullivan for $1.00 to $5.00 a game while on the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Deputy Vanderweert overheard licensee Steve Martin attempting to induce a patron to play the game of pool with him for $1,000.00 per game. When the patron would not play for that amount of money, Martin and the patron played games of pool for $5.00 to $10.00 a game. Vanderweert purchased marijuana from patron Greg Sullivan while they were seated at the bar. Respondent was present in the bar at the time of the transaction. On February 14, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played games of pool with patron Sullivan for $5.00 to $10.00 a game. Respondent Steve Martin was present during the gambling and was aware that gambling was taking place. Investigator Woodrow observed Sullivan produce a package of marijuana while he was standing at the bar. Sullivan asked the bartender Maggie and the officers if they had rolling papers but received negative replies. On February 19, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed Greg Sullivan obtain cigarette rolling papers from bartender Dory Korswald and smoke a marijuana cigarette with her while inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. While Vanderweert and Sullivan were seated at the bar in the presence of bartender Dory, Vanderweert purchased a plastic baggie of marijuana and a plastic baggie of cocaine from Sullivan. On February 21, 1985, Investigator Woodrow was approached by Sullivan inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar and asked if he would like to buy cocaine. Sullivan delivered a plastic package of cocaine to Woodrow while they were seated at the bar. Respondent Martin came into the bar during the negotiations and was seated three seats away at the time of the transaction and bartender Dory Korswald was on duty behind the the bar. On February 26, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played games of pool with patron Greg Sullivan for money. While Vanderweert was seated at the bar, he purchased a plastic package of suspected cocaine from patron Sullivan while bartender Dory Korswald was on duty behind the bar. But the Division never proved that the substance was cocaine. On February 28, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert engaged in playing pool for money on the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Vanderweert observed bartender Dory Korowald smoke a marijuana cigarette with patrons inside the premises. Investigator Woodrow observed Greg Sullivan produce a baggie of marijuana and roll a marijuana cigarette while he was seated at the bar. After Sullivan finished rolling his cigarette, Vanderweert purchased the remainder of the baggie of marijuana from him. Woodrow purchased a plastic package of cocaine from Sullivan while they were seated at the bar in the presence of bartender Dory Korawald. On March 5, 1985, Investigator Woodrow purchased from patron Greg Sullivan, inside the licensed premises of The suspected LSD. The transaction took place at the bar. However, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. On March 7, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert purchased from patron Sullivan, inside the licensed premises, what was described to him to be two hits of LSD. Again, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. On March 11, 1985, Investigator Woodrow purchased from patron Sullivan what was described to him to be two hits of LSD inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Respondent Martin was seated at the bar during the transaction. Again, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. Respondent Martin works at the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. every day, but is seldom there at night. He has never seen or possessed illegal drugs inside the bar. He is aware that patrons gamble on the pool tables and has done so himself. He stopped all gambling on the tables after charges were brought by the Division. Respondent cannot afford a manager and has only two full time employees, with one additional fill in. He does not require his employees to fill out an employment application and cannot remember if he checked his employees' prior employment records. He has no signs posted concerning drugs but does have posted a letter from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent was told by employees and customers that Greg Sullivan was involved in drug transactions and barred Sullivan from the premises. No evidence was presented as to what, if any, changes were made in Respondent's management of the premises after he received notice in November 1984 that drug transactions were alleged to have occurred on the premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Alcoholic Beverage License Number 68-929, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Steve Martin, d/b/a The Hustler Bar. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Craig Soria, Esquire 766 Hudson Avenue Suite B Sarasota, Florida 33577 Lt. Tom Ewing 2665 Cleveland Avenue Ft. Myers, Florida 33482 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 Sough Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 85-3914 The following are specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The following proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary: 1-5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 19. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 6 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence was not proved. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 7 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the evidence was that other patrons, not Sullivan, were gambling with Vanderweert. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part subordinate. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 14, 16, 17 and 18 would have been included verbatim in the Findings Of Fact except that the evidence never proved the identity of the alleged substances. Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact.
The Issue The issue is whether the application for Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-6847 received by the Department on June 21, 1985, should be disapproved: because the application discloses a person with a direct interest in the premises to be licensed (Mr. Farquharson) is ineligible for licensure pursuant to Section 561.15(2) and 561.17(1), Florida Statutes (1985), due to conviction for the sale of marijuana within the last five years, and for violation of Section 559.791, Florida Statutes (1985) for a material misstatement on the application by not disclosing these convictions?
Findings Of Fact An application for an alcoholic beverage license to permit consumption of beer and wine on a restaurant premises was filed by Pauline B. Farquharson which was received by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco on June 21, 1985. "Exhibit 1). The application discloses that Barranett Farquharson born 7/1/52, has a direct interest in the premises to be licensed [Exhibit 1, page 18, Section I(6)(C)]. A personal questionnaire, Department of Business Regulation form DBR 71 OL for Barranett Farquharson was included in the application, which contained the following question and answer: "Have you ever been in this state, any other state, by the United States or by any foreign country: Arrested, charged or convicted of any violation of the law excluding minor traffic violations? Answer: Yes. On or about (1980-81). Arrested, possession of a weapon. Found not guilty." (Exhibit 2) The application also disclosed that the funds for the operation of the business, $60,000, had been obtained from personal funds in the amount of $4,934.09, and $56,065.91 from loans and mortgages. (Exhibit 1, page 11). A mortgage in the amount of $23,446.91 had been received from Standard Federal Loan Association of Gaithersburg, Maryland. A settlement statement included with the application, showed the borrowers as Barranett Farquharson and Pauline Farquharson. (Exhibit 1, pages 12-13). As part of the application, Mr. Barranett Farquharson was fingerprinted and the fingerprints were sent for examination to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation responded with a report showing that the police department of New York City, New York had recorded the following arrest history, charges and charge disposition for Barranett Farquharson: 11/3/80 - Charged with possession of marijuana. Disposition: conditional discharge. 8/14/81 - Charged with sale of marijuana, possession of marijuana. Disposition: time served on criminal possession of marijuana. l0/14/82 - Charged with criminal possession of marijuana 4th, Criminal sale of marijuana 4th. Disposition: conditional discharge on criminal sale marijuana 4th. 11/3/82 - Charged with criminal sale marijuana 4th, unlawful possession marijuana. Disposition: sentenced to $50/30 days, fine paid on criminal sale of marijuana 4th. (Exhibit 4) A certified copy of the records of the Criminal Court of the City of New York was also entered into evidence as Exhibit 3. It disclosed that Barranett Farquharson, born 7/1/52, had been arrested and arraigned on charges of violating Section 221.15 of the penal law of the State of New York for the unlawful possession of marijuana and was adjudicated guilty of that charge on February 19, 1982. Mr. Farquharson was again arraigned on December 17, 1982 for violation of Section 221.40 of the penal law of the State of New York, criminal sale of marijuana in the 4th degree, and he received a conditional discharge. He was again arrested on November 3, 1982, arraigned on charges of violation of Sections 221.05 and 221.40 of the penal law of the State of New York on November 4, 1982, and he was found guilty of criminal sale of marijuana in the 4th degree and sentenced to pay a $250.00 fine. Section 221.05 of the penal law of the State of New York reads as follows: "Unlawful possession of marihuana. (VIOLATION)I A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana. Unlawful possession of marihuana is a violation punishable only by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. However, where the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense defined in this article or article 220 of this chapter committed within the three years immediately preceeding such violation, it shall be punishable (a) only by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, if the defendant was previously convicted of one such offense committed during such period, and (b) by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or a term of imprisonment not in excess of fifteen days or both, if the defendant was previously convicted of two such offenses committed during such period." (Exhibit 6) Section 221.15 of the penal law of the State of New York provides: "Criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree. A person is guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances of an aggregate weight of more than two ounces containing marihuana." Section 221.40 of the penal law of the State of New York provides: "Criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree. A/MISD.) A person is guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells marihuana except as provided on Section 221.35 of this article." (Exhibit 6)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application for an Alcoholic Beverage License submitted by Mrs. Pauline Farquharson d/b/a Pauline's West Indian Restaurant be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, 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 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mrs. Pauline B. Farquharson 104 N. E. 205th Terrace Miami, Florida 33179 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
