The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a wholesale cigarette dealer's permit should be granted, or denied on the ground that two of its corporate officers lack good moral character.
Findings Of Fact In November, 1981, Applicant corporation applied to DABT for a wholesale cigarette dealer's permit. (P-1.) Applicant is owned by Marlene Kantor (50 percent) and Eugene and Charlotte Milgram (50 percent). Marlene Kantor is the president and chief executive officer; Eugene Milgram is the secretary-treasurer. (Testimony of Milgram, Kantor; P-1.) In January, 1982, DABT disapproved Applicant's permit application on the ground that two of the owners lacked good moral character. By letter dated February 12, 1982, DABT explained: The basis for the denial under moral char- acter is that these two individuals [Eugene and Charlotte Milgram] are corporate officers in a beverage licensed establishment which has had its beverage license revoked. (P-4.) The parties agree that, in all other respects, Applicant is qualified for the requested wholesale cigarette dealer's permit. (Prehearing Stipulation; P-2, P- 3, P-4.) In 1981, Eugene and Charlotte Milgram were stockholders and corporate officers of a licensed alcoholic beverage establishment known as the Palace Bar and Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bar ("Palace Bar" or "licensee") located in Miami, Florida. In that year, DABT instituted an administrative action against Palace Bar for alleged violations of the Beverage Law, Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. By Final Order dated July 2, 1981, in State of Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Palace Bar and Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bar, DOAH Case No. 81-501, DABT revoked the alcoholic beverage license of Palace Bar on the ground that it was negligent and failed to exercise due diligence by not taking necessary steps to prohibit illicit drug activity on the premises. The order indicates that several illicit drug transactions occurred between undercover agents and patrons of the bar during a 13-day period; that none of the transactions exceeded $25; that the licensee did not condone this activity; that measures (although subsequently proved inadequate) had been taken to prevent drug activity on the premises; that there was no showing that the licensee participated in or had direct knowledge of the patrons' illicit drug activities; and that owners of the licensee-- whose visits to the premises were infrequent--left the management of the licensed premises (during the period in question) in the hands of its full-time bar manager. This DABT order has been appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. (R-2, P-5.) Since 1966, Eugene Milgram has owned and operated Wash & Dry Vending Company, a company which owns and maintains laundry equipment in apartments and institutions. He and Charlotte Milgram, his wife, have reputations in the Miami area as honest people. Business loans which they have obtained have been timely repaid; because of their good record, Barnett Bank of South Florida would, if requested, extend to them an unsecured line of credit of up to $500,000. (Testimony of Randall, Rossin, Milgram.) During the years the Milgrams operated the Palace Bar and Wash & Dry Vending Company, they complied with all federal and state tax reporting requirements. Internal Revenue Service audits of their tax records did not reveal any significant deficiencies. (Testimony of Rossin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the requested wholesale cigarette dealer's permit be issued. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for a violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, a provision of the Florida Beverage Law, which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses: Thomas L. Stout, Bernard W. Cooper, Timothy J. Culley, and Craig Brady Cooper. Mr. Antonino Sciarrino testified on behalf of respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits and the Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Both the Respondent and counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the hearing officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained within this order they were considered by the hearing officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action the Respondent was the holder of beverage license number 21-478, Series 2COP. This license was issued for the licensed premises located at 499 Goodlette Road, Naples, Florida. The licensed premises is a convenience store that also sells various types of food and dry good items plus sandwiches and beer. The Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. is owned and managed by Antonino Sciarrino, the President of the Respondent corporation. The Goodlette Food Mart opened for business on January 1, 1982. Prior to this time Mr. Sciarrino operated a deli in New York City where he also sold beer. Sometime during October, 1982 (the specific date being unknown) , Craig Cooper, a minor, 16 years of age was stopped by a Naples police officer and found to be in the possession of a six-pack of beer. This beer had been purchased by Craig Cooper at the Goodlette Food Mart and he informed the police officer of this fact. Mr. Cooper was asked by the police officer if he would be willing to cooperate in a controlled buy at the Goodlette Food Mart. Mr. Cooper indicated that he would. Subsequent to the October stop Craig Cooper agreed to cooperate with the police in making a controlled purchase of alcoholic beverages at the Goodlette Food Mart and on November 6, 1982, Mr. Cooper was contacted by a Naples police officer and was given cash. He was asked to go to the Goodlette Food Mart and to use the cash he had been given to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. From the police station Craig Cooper drove to the Goodlette Food Mart and Officer Culley of the Naples Police Department followed him. While Craig Cooper went inside the Goodlette Food Mart Officer Culley observed from the parking lot, Craig Cooper entered the Goodlette Food Mart and went directly to the cooler area where soft drinks and alcoholic beverages are kept. He removed a six-pack of Heineken Beer. He then proceeded to the cash register and paid for the beer. The cashier on duty was Robert Peterson. He did not question Craig Cooper or ask him for any identification at the time that Mr. Cooper paid for the beer. Mr. Cooper then left the store and turned the beer over to Officer Culley. At the time of the purchase by Craig Cooper, the manager Antonino Sciarrino was not present in the store. Mr. Sciarrino, was in the store 10 to 12 hours a day, but was generally not present in the evenings. Robert Peterson had been hired as a part-time employee approximately two or three months prior to November 6, 1982. Mr. Sciarrino had no prior problems with Robert Peterson and was not aware of any instances where he had sold beer to minors. At the time Robert Peterson was hired, he was instructed to not sell to minors and to always ask for and check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There was also a sign posted in the employees room where they clock in and clock out which warned them that they could be criminally prosecuted for failing to check identification and for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. The Goodlette Food Mart had a policy against selling to minors and all employees were instructed regarding this policy and were required to check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There were signs posted on the cooler and the cash register informing customers that minors were prohibited from purchasing alcoholic beverages and that identification was required, There was also a sign next to the cash register which reminded the cashier to check the customers' I.D. when purchasing alcoholic beverages. This sign also gave the date and year which the birthdate on the identification had to predate in order for the person to purchase alcoholic beverages. The purpose of this sign was to enable employees to more efficiently and more accurately check identifications. Immediately following notification of the November 6, 1982, sale to Craig Cooper, Mr. Sciarrino terminated Robert Peterson's employment with the Goodlette Food Mart.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That thee Respondent be found not guilty of the violation charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charge be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice G. Scott, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Antonino Sciarrino, President Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. 499 Goodlette Road Naples, Florida Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to use due diligence to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 years on September 20, 1989, October 18, 1989 and February 2, 1990, which warrants discipline of its beverage license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Pic-N-Save Central Florida, Inc., doing business as Pic-N-Save Drugs #44, held alcoholic beverage license number 69-00622, Series 2-APS, for the premises located at 940 S.R. 434, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. Notice of training programs, sponsored by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to assist licensees in the training of their employees to maintain compliance with the laws regarding sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons is provided to all licensees as a part of their renewal notices. Respondent renewed its license on September 1, 1989, after having received such a notice. On August 10, 1989, Officer Cruce received a complaint about Respondent's licensed establishment from the Altamonte Springs Police Department. The nature of the alleged unlawful activity was the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. On September 20, 1989, Ms. Nicole Asbury, born March 3, 1971, an 18 year old underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, entered Respondent's licensed premises under the supervision of Officers Elizabeth Doyle and Mark Douglas, Law Enforcement Investigators with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Asbury was casually dressed, and did not appear to be a person over 21 years of age. Asbury purchased a sealed six pack of Busch Beer, 12 oz. cans, from one of Respondent's cashier employees on the licensed premises. Respondent's employee, Ms. Patricia Ann Crabtree, neither requested identification from nor asked the age of Asbury. Asbury, while still at the licensed premises, turned the sealed six pack of Busch Beer over to Officers Doyle and Douglas, after the transaction was completed. After having it initialed for identification by Asbury, Doyle and Douglas, Officer Doyle secured the beer in a wooden box in the trunk of her car until the morning of September 21, 1989, when Officer Doyle and Sgt. Blanton placed it in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco evidence vault until its release for the hearing in this case. It was in substantially the same condition as on September 20, 1989. Asbury had never purchased or attempted to purchase an alcoholic beverage in Respondent's establishment prior to September 20, 1989. Following the incident on September 20, 1989, Officer Doyle provided Respondent, via its manager Ms. Roseann Gasparro, with Notice of "Warning and Instructions for Compliance regarding violation(s)" on the licensed premises. The notice advised the Respondent that Crabtree had been apprehended and encouraged Respondent to "immediately contact the District Director, Cpt. Jack Wallace, to discuss the problem". This notice is called a "Step 1 Notice." On October 17, 1989, Respondent conducted a general meeting for all employees of the store to discuss security procedures throughout. The law against the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors was discussed and procedures for checking ID's were covered by Respondent's chief of security. Minerva Trill-Otevo was present and was trained at said meeting. On October 18, 1989, Asbury, age 18, again entered the licensed premises. She was under supervision of Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Officers Doyle and Smith and casually dressed, as instructed by the Officers, appearing to be a person under 21 years of age. Asbury went to the back of the store and picked up a sealed six pack of Bud Light Beer. As she approached the front, she asked Ms. Minerva Trillo- Otero, an employee of Respondent if her register was open. Trillo said yes and proceeded to her register and sold the alcoholic beverages to Asbury. Trillo did not at any time during the October 18, 1989, transaction, either request identification from or ask the age of Asbury. After the transaction was completed, Asbury turned the beer over to Officer Doyle. Subsequent to having it marked and tagged for evidence by Asbury and the Officers, Officer Doyle and Sgt. Blandton placed it in the evidence vault, where it remained until its release for the hearing. It was in substantially the same condition as on October 18, 1989. Petitioner issued a "Final Warning" letter on October 23, 1989, urging Respondent to personally address the problem, as a subsequent violation would invoke issuance of a Notice to Show Cause. Respondent was, again, encouraged to immediately make an appointment with the Division's representatives. On February 2, 1990, Officers Doyle and Smith, Law Enforcement Investigators with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, were being assisted by Melissa Schuckman, an 18 year old (born July 26, 1971), underaged operative. Schuckman and the Officers went to Respondent's licensed premises, where Schuckman purchased a sealed six pack of Coors Light Beer from Ms. Milda Grabnickas, a cashier in Respondent's employ. Ms. Grabnickas did not, at any time during the transaction, ask for identification from or request the age of Ms. Schuckman. Schuckman is, and appeared at the time to be, a person under 21 years of age. After purchasing the beer, as she was exiting the premises, Schuckman turned the beer over to Officer Doyle. Officer Doyle and Ms. Schuckman marked the beer and tagged it for identification, after which, Officer Doyle secured the beer as she had on the two previous occasions, and kept it in the evidence vault of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until its release for the hearing. It was in substantially the same condition as on February 2, 1990. As a result of the activity which occurred on February 2, 1990, Officer Doyle gave notice to Respondent via its representative, Ms. Gasparro, of the Petitioner's intent "to file administrative charges against your beverage license for violation of Florida Statute Section 562.11 . . . ." Subsequently, the February 13, 1990 Notice to Show Cause at issue in this case was rendered. Pursuant to policy of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, administrative charges, i.e., Notices to Show Cause, are not issued until there are three instances of alleged unlawful sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Respondent hosted a training program for all employees, conducted by Officer Cruce of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, on February 26, 1990, at the request of Ms. Gasparro, the store manager. Although the request for the training program was made in late January, the third instance of unlawful activity had already occurred prior to the training program. Despite a relatively high turnover of personnel, Respondent conducts, on the average, two security meetings per year. Compliance with the Florida Beverage license law is but one of several issues addressed at these meetings. It is the Respondent's written policy to discharge an employee for violation of law or company policy. Respondent has signs posted for cashiers and customers regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged customers at each register which read as follows: "If you were born after today's date 1969 you cannot purchase wine or beer."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be held responsible for failure to use due diligence to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age on three occasions in 1989 and 1990; and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1000 and serve a 20-day suspension of its alcoholic beverage license number 69-00622, Series 2-APS. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,16,17. Rejected as argument or irrelevant: Paragraphs 11,15. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs A (in part), C,D,E,F,M,N,O,S. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence: Paragraphs B,G,H,K,P.R. Rejected as irrelevant: Paragraphs I,J,L,Q. COPIES FURNISHED: Emily Moore, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph Sole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Simon W. Selber, Esquire Suite 500 Edward Ball Building Jacksonville, FL 32202-4388 Leonard Ivey Director Division of Alcholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent or its agent illegally sold alcohol to a minor and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moe's Petroleum Corp., d/b/a Plantation Texaco, is a small, privately-owned gas station and convenience store. It is owned and operated by Mohammed Shareed. Mr. Shareed and his wife are the primary full-time employees of the business. For the period relevant to this matter, Sharika Salmon was a part-time employee. The business sells both gasoline and commercial items to its customers. Sale of packaged alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) is allowed under the business' alcohol beverage license, No. 16-06936, Series 2 APS. Mr. Shareed has owned and operated the business for about two years. He has not been previously cited for violating the terms of his alcohol beverage license. Ms. Salmon is a college student. She obtained a part- time position at the business following discussions between her aunt and Mr. Shareed. It was decided that Ms. Salmon could work a few hours each afternoon after class whenever possible. She averaged about 12 hours per week while employed at the business. She was trained as to how to operate the cash register and other machines. Part of her training included specific instructions to ask customers for identification when they purchased alcohol. She understood she was not to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21 years. Mr. Shareed advised his employees daily about checking for identification when alcohol was purchased. He placed visible written signs in the store advising customers that minors could not purchase alcohol. On November 16, 2006, at approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigative Aide #FL0033 entered the business. He was working for the Division as an underage cooperative. His job was to attempt to purchase alcohol from various businesses. On the night of November 16, 2006, he did about 15 "buys" during the 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. time frame. The purchase at Mr. Shareed's business was one of those. On the evening in question, Investigative Aide #FL0033 (at that time 18 years old) entered the business, went to the beer cooler in the back, and selected a six-pack of Heineken beer. He took the beer to the front counter and, along with a pack of gum, placed it on the counter. The investigative aide gave the clerk (Ms. Salmon) a ten-dollar bill from investigative funds entrusted to him for that purpose. She took the bill, made change, and handed the change and the beer to the investigative aide. He took his purchases and left the store. No words were exchanged between the investigative aide and the clerk during the sales transaction. Ms. Salmon did not ask the investigative aide for identification in order to ascertain his age. At the time of the transaction, Mr. Shareed was standing just to the clerk's right side concentrating on paperwork related to previous gasoline purchases. He was no more than two or three feet from the clerk. Mr. Shareed was standing at a 90-degree angle from the counter and the clerk. He was not involved in the sale transaction and did not specifically remember it occurring. Mr. Shareed gave his employees the right to act independently once they were trained. He did not monitor or oversee their every move. During the transaction, Special Agent Fisten was also in the store, posing as a customer. He was standing behind the investigative aide during the sale and did not hear any words spoken during the entire transaction. The investigative aide took the beer outside where it was taken by Special Agent Smith, who placed it in a bag, marked it for identification, and initialed the identification receipt. The beer was then placed in the trunk of Special Agent Smith's vehicle. The special agents then went back into the store and notified Mr. Shareed that they were charging him with sale of alcohol to a minor, a violation of his license. He was cited and instructed about the administrative process. The agents took information from Ms. Salmon as well. In fact, they asked her for identification due to the fact that she looked so young. (Ms. Salmon quit her job after this incident because the process upset her.) During the sale transaction, Mr. Shareed was doing paperwork incident to gasoline purchases made earlier in the day. He was preoccupied with that work and did not notice the sale as it occurred. Mr. Shareed's testimony on that fact is credible; it is not likely that he actively watches or participates in every sale that occurs during the day. Mr. Shareed was not involved in the sale; had he been, he would have requested identification from the investigative aide. The policy of the business was to require identification from anyone purchasing beer who looked young. The business had never previously been cited for violation of its license. Nor was the Division investigating the premises on the basis of a complaint or allegation. Rather, the business was simply chosen at random because it was in the area the Division was focusing on that particular day. Mr. Shareed's testimony that he trained his wife and other employees to check identification was credible. Conversely, the testimony of the investigative aide and other agents appears cloudy concerning the distinguishing facts of the sales transaction at issue compared to numerous other transactions during that same evening. Petitioner is seeking to impose a fine of $1,000 and a suspension of Respondent's license for a period of seven consecutive days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, dismissing the charges against the license of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against Henry Rodriguez, trading as Hickory House, 38 Sunshine Mall, Clearwater, Florida. This Notice to Show Cause was filed against the license, No. 62-1602, Series 2-COP, which the Respondent had been granted by the Petitioner. This license was in effect on or about April 10, 1978, at a time the Respondent was accused of failing to disclose the name and address of a person connected directly or indirectly with the business, namely, William Vasios, and this failure to disclose was allegedly contrary to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "561.17 License application; approved person.-- Any person, before engaging in the business of manufacturing, bottling, distributing, selling, or in any way dealing in alcoholic beverages, shall file, with the district supervisor of the district of the division in which the place of business for which a license, is sought is located, a sworn application in duplicate on forms provided to the district supervisor by the division. Prior to any application being approved, the division may require the applicant to file a set of fingerprints on regular United States Department of Justice forms for himself and for any person or persons interested directly or indirectly with the applicant in the business for which the license is being sought, when so required by the division. If the applicant or any person interested with the applicant either directly or indirectly in the business is not qualified, the application shall be denied by the division. All applications for alcoholic beverage licenses for consumption on the premises shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or the county health department that the place of business where in the business is to be conducted meets all of the sanitary requirements of the state." The facts in this case reveal that on April 10, 1978, when a routine inspection was made of the licensed premises by an employee of the Petitioner, one William Vasios was found to be in charge of the premises. Vasios reported that in July, 1977, he had loaned the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, an amount of $14,000.00 to keep the Hickory House business open and Vasios had taken over the operation of the business to protect his interest in the loan. Some of the indicia of Vasios' interest in the business are shown by the fact that the sales tax permit for operating the business was issued in both Rodriguez' and Vasios' names, as demenstrated through the Petitioner's opposite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. Certain cancelled checks drawn on the business, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibits 3 through 5 admitted into evidence, were written by William Vasios and not the Respondent. These checks pertained to the operation of the business. Certain recap slips and ledger entries indicated that Vasios was controlling the business. The only indication that Rodriguez is still involved in the operation of the licensed premises is shown by his comments to the effect that he makes periodic checks of the business a couple of times a week. Henry Rodriguez had not disclosed the interest which William Vasios had in the license even though this requirement was stated in law through Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and in our system of jurisprudence the Respondent is presumed to know the requirements of law. Additionally, when the Respondent applied for the license, he completed a form which indicated that he was disclosing any interest which other persons would have in the licensed premises; and even though this form was filled out at a time prior to Vasios' involvement with the business, common sense would have dictated that the Respondent apprise the Petitioner of any future interest which a third party might have in the licensed premises. The license was last renewed for the period October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. There has been no further effort on the part of the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, to renew the license and, by his remarks in the course of the hearing, he has indicated that he has no future desire to renew the license. The license is nonetheless still in effect and subject to the penalties provided for through the Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The license is deemed to be a viable license, based upon an examination of the provisions of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes, which states: "561.27 Renewing license.- A licensee under the Beverage Law shall be entitled to a renewal of his annual license from year to year, as a matter of course, on or before September 30 by presenting the license for the previous year or satisfactory evidence of its loss or destruction to the division and by paying the annual license tax and giving any bond required of such licensee under the Beverage Law. A license may be renewed subsequent to September 30 of each year only upon making to the division a delinquent application for approval, accompanied by an affidavit stating that no sales of alcoholic beverages have been made subsequent to September 30, and upon payment of a penalty of $5 for each month or fraction of a month of delinquency, or upon payment of a penalty of 5 percent of the license fee, whichever amount is the greater. All licenses not renewed within 60 days of September 30 will be canceled by the division unless such license is involved in litigation; however, the division may allow a licensee to renew the license subsequent to the 60day period after good and sufficient cause for the delinquency has been shown to the division by the licensee." It was not revealed in the course of the hearing whether the Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) was filed later than sixty days beyond September 30, 1978, and under the language of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes, the automatic cancellation set out in that provision only applies to licenses which were not renewed sixty days beyond September 30, 1978, and it excepts those licenses which were the subject of litigation or those licenses where the licensee was able to show good and sufficient cause for his delinquency in the payment of the renewal fee. Since the proof failed to demonstrate the effective date of the filing of the Notice of Show Cause, it is presumed for the purposes of this hearing that the Notice to Show Cause was filed prior to the expiration of the sixty-day grace period which follows the September 30, 1978, date. Therefore, the license would have been in litigation and not subject to cancellation by the provisions of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. This analysis can be supported by the fact that the Respondent was apprised of the Petitioner's concern on the question of the non-disclosure of the name of William Vasios and this knowledge was imparted to the Respondent on April 11, 1978, at a time when the license was still in operation under the payment of fees for the period October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. In summary, the Respondent is the holder of a license within the meaning of the law and has violated the provisions of Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting the Respondent to the penalties found Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts herein, it is recommended that the license, No. 62-1602, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez to trade as Hickory House, at the location 38 Sunshine Mall, Clearwater, Florida, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Rodriguez t/a Hickory House 38 Sunshine Mall Clearwater, Florida 33516 Captain R. Caplano Park Trammell Building, Room 705 1313 Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33623
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Boyd's Service, Inc., was under the control and operation of its owner, Leslie Boyd. Respondent holds Alcoholic Beverage license no. 62-03664, series 2-APS, for a premises known as Boyds Service located at 1500 22nd Street South in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Commencing on or about January 12, 1990, Petitioner, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, engaged in a cooperative effort with the St. Petersburg Police Department by conducting a "sting" investigation of eight businesses in the south St. Petersburg area to determine if the owners of such businesses were trafficking in stolen property. Investigators Craig Parsons, Ira McQueen, Priscilla Turner, and David Henry, all employees of Petitioner and Detectives Glen Henry, Luke Williams, Johnny Harris, Tom Kewin, and Rod Adams of the St. Petersburg Police Department participated in the sting investigation. On or about January 12, 1990, Detective Harris, while monitored by Investigator Parsons and Detective Henry, entered Respondent's licensed premises in an undercover capacity as part of the sting investigation and Detective Harris discussed with Respondent his desire to purchase property that Detective Harris asserted was stolen, to wit, several cartons of "Kool Kings" cigarettes. Respondent expressed a willingness to buy stolen property from Detective Harris but that he needed Newport cigarettes. Detective Harris indicated to Respondent that he would return on a later date with stolen Newport cigarettes for Respondent to purchase. On or about January 19, 1990, Detective Harris, while monitored by investigator Parsons and Detective Williams, drove to Respondent's premises accompanied by Investigators McQueen and Turner as part of the sting investigation. Detective Harris parked in front of Respondent's premises and exited his vehicle. Detective Harris approached Respondent and related "I have five cartons of Newport 100's for you which I stole the other day". Respondent asked Detective Harris where the merchandise was and inquired if he was "wired". Detective Harris exited the premises, returned to his vehicle, removed the cigarettes that he asserted were stolen and reentered Respondent's business. Respondent handed Detective Harris $30.00 in exchange for the cigarettes. On or about January 24, 1990, Detectives Harris and Williams, while monitored by Investigator Parsons, Detectives Henry and Kewin, reentered Respondent's licensed premises as part of the sting investigation. While there, Detective Harris introduced Respondent to Detective Williams identifying him as "Pete" and further identifying him as his buddy who works at Pace Warehouse who was stealing the property which Detective Harris was selling to Respondent. Detective Harris told Respondent that he had in his vehicle which was parked in front of Respondent's business, five cartons of Kool King cigarettes and five cases of Colt 45 beer which he asserted to be stolen. Respondent asked to see the merchandise whereupon they exited the licensed premises and the detectives opened the trunk of their vehicle to display the "stolen" merchandise. Respondent agreed to "buy it all" and directed the detectives to drive their vehicle around to the back of his premises into an attached garage area. A discussion ensued from which Respondent admitted that he had previously been arrested of dealing in stolen property and if they (the detectives) were "setting him up" he would kill them. Respondent directed the detectives to unload the property from their vehicle into the garage area. While doing so, Respondent walked to the front of the store and returned with the money in exchange for the merchandise. On or about January 29, 1990, Detective Williams, while monitored by Detectives Henry and Kewin, reentered Respondent's licensed premises as part of the ongoing sting investigation. While there, Detective Williams approached Respondent and related "I kept you in mind" to which Respondent related "I think I know what you're talking about". Detective Williams then stated to Respondent "I stole some more stuff from Pace". Respondent then asked to see the merchandise whereupon the Detectives told Respondent that they had a "trunk full of stuff, they don't even know it's gone yet". Detective Williams related having about nine cases of beer and some cigarettes which he agreed to let Respondent purchased for $60.00. Respondent agreed to make the purchase whereupon Detective Williams and Respondent exited the licensed premises and Detective Williams opened the trunk of his vehicle to display the merchandise. Respondent directed Detective Williams to bring the beer into the licensed premises and Respondent removed two cartons of Newport 100's and two cartons of Kool cigarettes which he (Respondent) carried into the licensed premises. Upon reentering the licensed premises, Detective Harris and Respondent negotiated a price for the merchandise. Respondent tendered Detective Williams $36.00 from the cash register in exchange for the "stolen" merchandise. Before leaving, Detective Williams advised Respondent that he would have to slack off from stealing from Pace because he had taken quite a bit over the past week. Respondent requested that Detective Williams bring him some cigarettes and some more Old Milwaukee beer concluding that he could not buy what he could not sell and that he still had some Colt 45 left from his last purchase. On or about January 30, 1990 Officer Adams entered Respondent's licensed premises on two separate occasions and purchased two cans of Colt 45 beer, two packs of Newport 100's and four packs of Kool cigarettes. These items were turned over to Detective Henry who secured their custody until the hearing herein. Upon examination, it is determined that three of the four packs of Kool cigarettes had an Indian tax exempt stamp affixed and the two packs of Newport 100's had an extra pin dot affixed to the state tax seal. These were specific identifying marks which the detectives had affixed to identify property which they sold to Respondent during the course of the sting investigation. On or about March 29, 1990, Detectives Williams, Henry, Kewin and Investigators Parsons and Merrill reentered the licensed premises and arrested Respondent. Respondent was transported to the St. Petersburg Police Department where his Miranda rights were explained to him. He was thereafter interviewed by Detective Henry and Investigator Merrill. During the course of the interview, Respondent was allowed to listen to a cassette tape which contained a recording of a conversation which took place on the licensed premises on January 19, 1990 between Respondent and Detective Harris. In that tape, Respondent is heard agreeing to purchase the stolen property. Respondent admitted it was his voice on the tape and confessed to Detective Henry and Investigator Merrill that he had previously purchased property which was allegedly stolen from them on three different occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage license no. 62-03664, series 2- APS, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1991.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application to change its corporate officers should be denied because the proposed officer allegedly lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Village Zoo holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-839, Series 4- COP SR, authorizing it to serve alcoholic beverages at its bar (the "licensed premises") at 900 Sunrise Lane, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 22, 1982, the Village Zoo filed an application with DABT to change corporate officers by adding James C. Dowd as a vice president1. While this application was pending, James C. Dowd was employed as one of the managers at the Village Zoo. One of his duties was to help the bartender serve alcoholic beverages on an as-needed basis. On November 5, 1982, undercover Beverage Officer Tom Wheeler, 24, entered the licensed premises to investigate complaints of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons--persons under the age of 19. He paid a cover charge at the door, his identification was not checked. Inside, he saw 50-75 young patrons crowded in the area of the second floor bar. Two persons were tending bar, one of whom was James C. Dowd. Officer Wheeler saw two young patrons, William Esler, 17, and Kelly Heatherman, 18, approach the bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd, who then served them two alcoholic beverages. (William Esler ordered and was served a Whiskey and Seven- up; Kelly Heatherman ordered and was served a Budweiser beer). Mr. Dowd served them these drinks without asking their age or checking their identification. When these two underaged individuals ordered the drinks, they were standing at the bar and in plain view of Mr. Dowd; they were neither standing behind others nor hidden from view. After Mr. Dowd served these two drinks, he was arrested and charged with the crime of serving alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 19. When Kelly Heatherman and William Esler, the two underaged persons, entered the premises that evening, they paid a cover charge but their age was not questioned at the entry door. Neither was their identification checked. The Village Zoo has a reputation in the community as a popular gathering place for young people. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman had been there before. William Esler had been there twice, prior to the November 5, 1982, incident, and once since. His identification had never been checked, although he did not order a drink on his last visit. Kelly Heatherman had been there every week from approximately September (1982) to November 5, 1982. During most of his visits, he ordered alcoholic beverages. One time, his identification was checked at the door and he was turned away. Since the November 5, 1982, incident, he has returned to the Village Zoo a couple of times. James C. Dowd was aware of Heatherman's continued patronage of the Village Zoo and described Heatherman as a regular customer. Heatherman continued to order and was served alcoholic beverages during his visits to the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982. After November 5, 1982, Heatherman continued to enter the Village Zoo without having his identification checked, despite the fact he was identified to the Village Zoo and James C. Dowd, on November 5, 1982, as being under the legal age (19) to possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman were, as of the date of the administrative hearing on this case, under the age of 19 years. James C. Dowd knew or should have known that Kelly Heatherman's consumption of alcoholic beverages served by the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982, was contrary to the Beverage Law. (This paragraph contains findings of fact which are in addition to those found by the Hearing Officer. Such additional facts are not contrary to those found by the Hearing Officer, rather they amplify the same and are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of sworn testimony of Kelly Heatherman, William Esler and James C. Dowd). The Village Zoo had an announced policy prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons and prohibiting their entry onto the licensed premises. To enforce this policy, two persons were posted at the entryway to check identification and collect cover charges from patrons. Peter Balcunas, and off-duty Fort Lauderdale policeman, was also hired to provide security and assistance to the door-checkers. He was ordinarily posted near the front door, outside the premises. Under this Village Zoo policy, the two door-checkers had the primary responsibility to check the identification of patrons and prevent underaged persons from entering the premises. All employees, however, had the duty to check the identification of any patron if there was any question or doubt about whether the individual was of drinking age. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman fall within this "questionable or doubtful" category. From their demeanor and outward appearance at hearing, it is difficult to determine their true age. Their faces are mature for their age and they could reasonably pass as 18, 19 or 20-year olds. On the evening of November 5, 1982, Kelly Heatherman and William Esler entered the premises, walking past the door-checkers and Officer Balcunas. They then proceeded to the second floor bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd. Their age was not questioned and their identification was not checked. The Village Zoo's announced policy of forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, including steps taken to enforce it, compares favorably with those of similar businesses in the area serving alcoholic beverages. James C. Dowd, the person allegedly lacking in good moral character, has a reputation in the community as an honest trustworthy, hardworking and law- abiding man. He attends church regularly. His business associates view him as a man who honors his financial obligations and who has good moral character. Mr. Dowd does not recall serving alcoholic beverages to William Esler and Kelly Heatherman on November 5, 1982. There was a crowd of customers near the bar at the time, and he was helping the bartender serve drinks as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in his haste, he violated the Village Zoo policy. He served alcoholic beverages to two youthful-looking persons whose age was difficult to determine, without inquiring as to their age or checking their identification. There is no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. (Two sentences contained in the Recommended Order at this place, were deleted as such constitute conclusions of law, not of fact). Although there was evidence that the two underaged persons had been served alcoholic beverages at the Village Zoo prior to and after November 5, 1982, it was not shown that Mr. Dowd served them or that (as one of the managers) he was culpably responsible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Village Zoo's application to change corporate officers be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a special restaurant license (4COP-SRX) can be deemed incomplete for failure to obtain zoning approval from the local government.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a restaurant duly-licensed by the State of Florida to serve food and certain alcoholic beverages. It currently holds a 2COP restaurant license, which allows it to sell beer and wine along with its food products. Petitioner has held the 2COP license since opening in calendar year 2002. Petitioner derives 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. It is in an area of Orange County which is zoned for commercial property and has the appropriate land use code for a restaurant chain. Petitioner's facility is presently located within 500 feet of a local school. The school was built a year or two after Petitioner began operation of its restaurant. In order for Petitioner to obtain an upgraded license so that it can serve other alcoholic beverages (i.e., liquor) it must submit an application to Respondent. Petitioner duly- submitted such an application on February 5, 2007. The application sought to upgrade Petitioner's license to a 4COP-SRX license. The 4COP license would allow for sale of all alcoholic beverages. Section 5 of the Application addresses zoning for the restaurant. Section 5 includes the following: Are there outside areas which are contiguous to the premises which are to be part of the premises sought to be licensed? [Petitioner answered, Yes.] If this application is for issuance of an alcoholic beverage license where zoning approval is required, the zoning authority must complete "A" and "B". If zoning is not required, the applicant must complete section "B". The location complies with zoning requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages or wholesale tobacco products pursuant to this application for a Series 4COP SRX license. Signed Title Date Is the location within limits of an "Incorporated City or Town"? Yes No If yes, enter the name of the city or town: Petitioner filled in the address portion of Section 5, but did not have a zoning authority complete Section A, nor did Petitioner complete Section B. Respondent deemed the Application incomplete due to Petitioner's failure to complete Section 5. On July 25, 2007, a Final Warning Notice was sent to Petitioner, allowing Petitioner ten additional days to submit zoning approval for the Application. When no zoning approval was returned within the prescribed period, Respondent issued its Intent to Deny License. Petitioner did make an inquiry to the local zoning authority concerning its application to increase the level of its license. However, by letter dated February 22, 2007, the Orange County Zoning Division notified Petitioner as follows: We have received your request for an increase in series to the alcoholic beverage license at Hooters Lake Underhill, 11425 Underhill Road, Orlando. On February 22, 2007 we conducted a distance check to see if the proposed location satisfied the separation requirements contained in the Orange County Code. The results of our inspection reveal that the proposed location is 407 ft. from Legacy Middle School at 11398 Lake Underhill Road. Since this location cannot satisfy the 1000 ft. separation requirement from the nearest school, this office cannot issue zoning approval for the increase in series.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, denying the application filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008.
