The Issue Whether or not on or about the 19th day of August, 1975, the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, his agent, servant or employee, one Robert Henry Williams did unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to wit: one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer, in a manner not permitted by the Respondent's beverage license, to wit: while the license was suspended, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 19, 1975, the beverage license which the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage was on active suspension. The notice of suspension had been served on Leartis Frazier at Frazier's Grocery, 2273 Commonwealth Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. Furthermore, a sign had been posted at that address which indicated that the license of Leartis Frazier t/a Frazier's Grocery was suspended. On August 19, 1975, while the license was under suspension an officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office observed one David Brooks enter Frazier's Grocery, without any objects in his hands. This observation occurred after the officer had encountered Brooks moments before in the conduct of an investigation and Brooks had not been carrying any objects in his hands at that moment either. Several minutes after entering the Frazier's, the same David Brooks exited Frazier's Grocery with a paper bag in his hands which contained one 16 ounce can of Budweiser beer. The Officer then entered the licensed premises and went to the beer counter and opened it up and discovered one can of beer missing from a six-pack container of Budweiser beer. At the time the officer made this investigation the sign which had been placed in the window of Frazier's Grocery to indicate the license suspension was being displayed. A Mr. Williams was sitting behind the counter inside the licensed premises as an employee, agent or servant of the Respondent at the time the officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office discovered the missing can of beer. Mr. Brooks, when questioned about where he had bought the can of beer, after discussion, indicated that he had bought it at Frazier's Grocery. By Mr. Brooks' statement and the officer's observation, it is established that Mr. Williams sold the Budweiser beer to Brooks. The Mr. Williams was identified in the hearing, as being Robert Henry Williams.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, Leartis Frazier, be suspended for a period of one year for the violation as established in the hearing on this Notice to Show Cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leartis Frazier 2273 Commonwealth Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued September 22, 1989 by the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondents, Eugene and Joan Ferretti, d/b/a Gino's Beer and Wine (Gino's) held a Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division) alcoholic beverage license for the premises known as Gino's located at 2012 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, Florida, license number 74-01399, series 2-APS Eugene and Joan Ferretti are co-licensees for Gino'. The Respondents stipulated that Gina Ferretti, employee and daughter of Eugene and Joan Ferretti, did on July 13, 1988 sell one 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage, to a person under the age of 21 years and on October 21, 1988 did sell one 8 ounce can of Budweiser Beer, an alcoholic beverage, to a person under the age of 21 years, both sales being in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On July 18, 1988 the Division gave the licensees Official Notice of the July 13, 1988 violation and advised the licensees that if a similar violation occurred in the future the licensees could be charged with the current violation along with any future violations. On October 24, 1988 the Division advised the licensees of the October 21, 1988 violation and that this was a final warning before issuance of a Notice To Show Cause in the event of another violation which could subject the license to revocation or suspension. Since the two incidents in which she was involved occurred, Gina Ferretti has had training concerning the sale of an alcoholic beverage to persons believed to be under the age of 21 years, and has not been involved in any other violations since October 21, 1988. Because Eugene Ferretti works in construction it is necessary for Gina Ferretti to help in running Gino's and, therefore, Gina Ferretti stills works in Gino's. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Tina D. May worked with the law enforcement investigators of the Division in the Daytona Beach, Florida area as an underage operative to assist in determining whether licensed establishments were selling alcoholic beverages within their licensed premises to persons under the age of 21 years. Ms. May was instructed by the Division, as all underage operatives are, not to dress or act in such a fashion that is designed to entice the licensee to sell her alcoholic beverages without checking her identification to confirm her age or in any way lie about her age or use a false identification. Ms. May considered her work with the Division as a public service because her husband was killed in a alcohol related vehicular accident. On March 11, 1989 Ms. May, then 20 years and 7 months of age, entered the licensed premises of the Respondent under the supervision of Ronald P. Sullivan, Investigator for the Division. Ms. May was casually dressed, wearing a white T-shirt with logo and blue jeans; her hair was brushed straight downward, and she wore no makeup. On March 11, 1989 Ms. May's appearance resembled that of a working person rather than that of a student on spring break. After entering Gino's, Ms. May proceeded to purchase a 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage. Eugene Ferretti was on duty at the time, and asked Ms. May if she was "21". Instead of responding that she was not "21", Ms. May handed Ferretti her Florida's driver's license with a yellow background indicating that the person identified in the license was under the age of 21 years when the license was issued. Ms. May's lack of a verbal response to Ferretti's question concerning her age was contrary to instructions given by Ronald Sullivan, to be "up front" about her age. The implication of Ms. May producing her driver's license in response to a question concerning her age, coupled with her appearance, led Ferretti to believe that she was "21", and resulted in Ferretti being less diligent than he should have been in reviewing Ms. May's driver's license. Due to Ferretti's lack of diligence he misread the 08 in May's birth date of 08/04/68 as an 03 and determined her birth date to be 03/04/68 rather than 08/04/68. Thinking she had just turned "21" on March 4, 1988, Ferretti sold Ms. May, a person under the age of 21 years, a 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage. Ms. May had never purchased or attempted to purchase an alcoholic beverage in Gino's before the time of this offense. Ronald P. Sullivan was at the door of Gino's when Ms. May purchased the beer, but was unable to hear the conversation between Ferretti and Ms. May. Upon completing the purchase of the 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer from Ferretti, Ms. May handed the beer to Sullivan who impounded it. Ferretti does not dispute the sale of the beer on March 11, 1989 to Ms. May, and allowed it to be introduced into evidence without objection. The conversations between the Division's operative and Gina Ferretti during the sales on July 13, 1988 and October 21, 1988 were taped, which is the usual procedure so as to rebut any conflicting testimony concerning a conversations between the Division's operative and the person making the sale. However, the conversation at the time of the sale between Ferretti and Ms. May on March 11, 1989 was not taped.
Recommendation In making the following recommendation I am mindful of the Division's "guidelines" of imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and a 20-day suspension of the license for the first offense of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, (selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 years) regardless of the circumstances surrounding the violation, which appear to conclusively presume that the penalty should be the same regardless of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation without any consideration being given to mitigating circumstances, if any. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the violations, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for such violations, considering the circumstances surrounding the violations, assess a civil penalty of $250.00 for each of the violations for a total civil penalty of $750.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 20th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6166 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 9 and 11, except the last sentence which is rejected since the label on the can of beer does not indicate the alcohol content. However, the can of beer does have the word Florida? on its lid and bares the trademark "Anheuser-Busch" which is prima facie evidence of it being an alcoholic beverage as defined in Section 561.01(4)(a), Florida Statutes which was not rebutted. See Section 562.47(2), Florida Statutes. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 through 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 through 6, as modified. Not necessary to the conclusion reached in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Facts 1 and 2, respectively. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7, but modified. 4.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11. 9.-10. These are restatements of testimony and not findings of fact, but see Finding of Fact 9. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 12.-16. These are restatements of testimony and not findings of fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 17.-18. Not material to the conclusion reached in this Recommended Order. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Emily Moore, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 French Davis, Esquire 2762 South Peninsular Daytona Beach, Florida 32118
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should fine the Respondent up to $1,000 for alleged violation of Section 561.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Billy Boy’s of Pinellas, Inc., d/b/a Big Shots, holds a temporary Series 4-COP license, license number 62- 00601, for licensed premises at 3934 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The previous licensee for the premises transferred the license to the Respondent, effective July 3, 1996. The sole owner and corporate officer of the Respondent is William Kovic. Within a week after assuming ownership and control of the licensed premises, the Respondent’s head bartender told him that several items of bar supplies and inventory needed to be replenished, including Budweiser beer in cans. Kovic told his bartender that he was going to the nearby Publix and would buy the needed items there. He took money out of the bar cash register to pay for the purchases. Kovic returned with the Publix purchases a short time later and gave them to his bartender for her use. Included among the Publix purchases were four 12-packs of Budweiser beer in cans. The bartender placed some of the Budweiser beer in the bar’s stock of inventory for resale and resold it in the course of bar business. The rest of the beer was stored in the cooler. Two days later, the bartender told Kovic that some of his customers were requesting particular brands of beer that were not available at the bar. Included among these were Icehouse, Red Dog and Michelob Lite. She told Kovic that these customers likely would take their business elsewhere if the bar could not sell their preferred brands. Once again, Kovic said he would go to Publix to get them and took money out of the bar cash register to pay for them. A short time later, Kovic returned to the bar with a case each of Icehouse, Red Dog and Michelob Lite. As before, the bartender placed some of the beer in the bar’s stock of inventory for resale and resold it in the course of bar business. The rest of the beer was stored in the cooler. The Respondent maintained receipts for these beer purchases among his other receipts evidencing purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale at the bar. Publix is a licensed retail vendor of beer. It is not licensed as a manufacturer, bottler or distributor. Nor is Publix involved in any pool buying group with the Respondent. Although Kovic did not testify, his defense to the charge in this case was that he bought the beer in question for use at a private party at his parents’ motel room thrown to celebrate his new bar. His former and current managers testified in support of this defense. Both testified that beer indeed was purchased for a private party and that it was set aside and labeled as such and was not sold at the bar. The former manager testified that it was his error to place the receipts in with the other receipts evidencing purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale at the bar. The testimony and evidence raised questions as to existence and time of the alleged party. But even if the testimony of Kovic’s former and current managers was truthful, neither was a witness to any conversation between Kovic and his former head bartender concerning these beer purchases, and neither could directly dispute the former bartender’s testimony that at least some of the Publix beer purchases were resold at retail. Both Kovic’s former and current managers also testified that the former head bartender, who informed the DABT of these alleged violations, was fired on or about July 15, 1996, was disgruntled, and had a motive to falsely accuse Kovic. However, they had no direct information from which they could conclude that the former head bartender was lying; they had to take Kovic’s word for it. While it is possible that the former head bartender was lying, it is found to be more likely that Kovic’s defense was fabricated and that his former and current managers testified to help Kovic avoid license discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the DABT), enter the final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995); and (2) imposing a $1,000 fine.RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 FAX FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1997.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Cesar J. Reyes, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-05034, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Busy Cafeteria Bar (the "premises"), located at 4601 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In November 1993, Special Agent Joe Lopez of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, together with the assistance of a confidential informant (CI), began an undercover investigation of the premises. Such investigation was predicated on information Special Agent Lopez had received from federal authorities which indicated that narcotics were being sold upon the premises. On December 1, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI entered the licensed premises. While inside the premises, the CI met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On the same occasion, Special Agent Lopez met with respondent, and he also purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. 1/ On December 2, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI returned to the licensed premises. While inside the licensed premises, they again met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On December 7, 1993, Special Agent Brian Weiner of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco served respondent with an emergency order suspending his alcoholic beverage license, and placed respondent under arrest for the sale of cocaine. Incident to such arrest, Special Agent Weiner searched respondent's person and discovered six small plastic packages, each containing 1/2 gram of cocaine, in a small box tucked under respondent's waist band.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of the notice to show cause, finding respondent guilty of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice to show cause, and revoking respondent's alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, and that she be given a $100 fine to be paid within fifteen days after the entry of a final order in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Irene B. Wright 1655 East 21st Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondents' beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting their licensed premises to be used for the purpose of prostitution and for gaining profit from that prostitution. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses, Beverly Fraley, Alfred Stone, and Raphael Grulau. The Respondents presented no evidence. The Petitioner offered and had admitted over the objection of the Respondent, one tape recording of conversations which occurred inside the licensed premises as a part of the undercover investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as being unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Katherine J. and Guy H. Sutton were the holders of a valid, current beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. This license was issued to a licensed premises called Guy's Tavern located on Highway 301, South, in Riverview, Florida. On May 12, 1983, Detective Beverly Fraley of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity. On this particular evening, Detective Fraley was accompanied by two other detectives of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in a backup capacity. Prior to entering the licensed premises, Detective Fraley was fitted with a body bug for the purpose of recording any conversations that she might have in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation. When Officer Fraley arrived, the two backup detectives were inside the licensed premises shooting pool. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Fraley went to the bar and ordered a drink. After obtaining her drink, she was approached by a white male, who called himself "Stogie." While talking with Stogie, another white male, who called himself "Turkey" approached Officer Fraley from behind and placed his arms around her. She had never met Turkey before. Officer Fraley pushed Turkey away and said "Keep your hands off the merchandise." Shortly after her encounter with Turkey, Officer Fraley began shooting pool with Stogie and the two undercover detectives. After a short time, she left the licensed premises with Detective Grulau and after a few minutes the two of them reentered the licensed premises. After reentering, Officer Fraley went to the ladies' rest room and when she came out, she was called over to the bar area by the owner, Guy Sutton, who was behind the bar. As Officer Fraley approached the bar, Mr. Sutton stated, "If you're going to fuck here you've got to pay me." Officer Fraley asked what he meant and he told her that she would have to pay him $5.00 for every trick" she took out of the bar. "Trick" is a slang or street term used to describe an act of prostitution. Mr. Sutton then identified himself as the owner and said that the other women in the bar also paid. Officer Fraley then gave Mr. Sutton a $5 bill. After paying Mr. Sutton, Officer Fraley turned to the bartender, Irene Springer, who was present during this conversation and asked if in fact the other women in the bar were required to pay. Irene Springer stated that the other women in the bar did in fact have to pay $5.00 per trick and a group of white females sitting at a table near the bar responded, "That's right honey." Later that evening, Officer Fraley left with the other undercover detective. When they returned, Guy Sutton was in the pool room area. Officer Fraley intentionally did not go over to Sutton. Shortly after she returned, Sutton came over to her and told her that she owed him another $5.00. He then told her that she would be better off paying him $25.00 per week rather than $5.00 per trick. He also stated that she had the potential to make $300 or $400 per week in his place. Guy's Tavern has a reputation in the community as a bar where prostitutes can be picked up.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondents' beverage license No. 39-1792, Series 2COP. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Blue Sun, Inc. d/b/a Phillip's Corner Cruise-Thru, was a licensed beer vendor having been issued Series 2-APS license number 39-01076 by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent uses its license at a business known as University Texaco located at 2245 East Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The store is located close to the University of South Florida campus. Its manager is Nancy Krueger, who appeared on behalf of the licensee. On the evening of December 4, 1987 a Division investigator, Keith B. Hamilton, conducted an investigation of respondent's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling beer to minors. The investigation was prompted by an unidentified complaint that beer was being sold to minors. It was the Division's practice that when such complaints were received, it sent a minor onto the premises for the purpose of purchasing alcoholic beverages. In this case, a sixteen year old minor, Scott Meredith, drove his personal car to the store and, while Hamilton stayed across the street and observed the transaction, ordered a twelve ounce can of Budweiser beer. The store clerk, John A. Damm, did not check Scott's identification or verify his age and sold him the beer. Afterwards, Hamilton met with Damm, obtained his identification and issued a criminal citation for Damn to appear in court for selling beer to a minor. Around 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 1988 Hamilton and a Division investigative aide, James Leschner, who was then 17 years of age, visited respondent's licensed premises for the purpose of determining if Leschner could purchase beer. While Hamilton stayed across the street and observed the transaction, Leschner drove to the front of the store in his own car and ordered a six-pack of Budweiser beer. The clerk, Brian Szcinski, did not check Leschner's identification or verify his age and sold him the beer. Szcinski was issued a citation requiring him to appear in court. After the incident occurred, Szcinski advised the manager what had happened. On September 10, 1988 Hamilton and Leschner returned to respondent's licensed premises. Again, while Hamilton observed from across the street, Leschner drove his own car to the front parking area and ordered a can of Budweiser beer. The order was initially placed with an unidentified male clerk but Krueger accepted the money and handed the beer to Leschner. The minor's identification was not checked. After the sale took place, Hamilton issued Krueger a criminal citation requiring her to appear in court. Also, a notice to show cause was later issued against the licensee seeking to impose a fine and suspend its license. Krueger blamed the three incidents on a high turnover of employees and the failure of a few employees to conform to store policy. According to Krueger, despite posting signs, advising employees of the rule on sales to minors, and instituting a policy of checking the identification of every person who looked under thirty years of age, these three sales inadvertently occurred. She asked for leniency given the number of years the business has been operating and the isolated instances of misconduct. She also complained that after the December 4, 1987 sale occurred, the Division did not personally advise her or the owner of the incident but merely served a citation on the clerk. According to agency records, respondent entered into consent agreements with the Division in 1983 and 1985 for the same type of violation. The agency does not have a rule containing suggested penalty guidelines for violations by licensees. However, its investigator recommended the imposition of a 60-day suspension of respondent's license and a $3,000 civil penalty as being appropriate under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) on three occasions. It is further recommended that respondent's APS license number 39-01076 be suspended for sixty days and it pay a $3,000 civil penalty. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 April, 1989.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, La Dominica Restaurant, Inc., held beverage license number 23-21657, series 2COP, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine only) for consumption on the premises known as La Dominica Restaurant, located at 11710 Northwest South River Drive, Medley, Dade County, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). On November 19, 1997, Joel Chades, a police officer with the Town of Medley, and Mr. Guasch, a code enforcement officer with the Town of Medley, operating undercover, visited the licensed premises in connection with their investigation of complaints that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages not permitted by their license. Officers Chades and Guasch entered the premises at or about 5:56 p.m., and seated themselves at one of the small tables provided for customers. When approached by a waitress, Officer Chades ordered a beer and a coke, with rum on the side. The waitress proceeded behind the counter, and was observed to pour a liquid from a plastic container into a styrofoam cup. She proceeded to the cooler for a beer and coke, and returned to the table where she delivered the drink order. The styrofoam cup was shown to contain rum, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold on the licensed premises. On December 4, 1997, Officers Chades and Guasch returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation and, when approached by a waitress, ordered two Corona beers and a rum and coke. The waitress proceeded to the back of the counter, and was observed to begin to pour what was, presumably, rum into a cup; however, at about that time a patron entered the premises, apparently recognized Officer Chades as a police officer, and, after he spoke with the owner (Juana Angeles) at the counter, the waitress stopped pouring and returned to the table to inquire whether they wished to order food. The officers declined and, despite their request, they were not served the rum and coke. Officer Chades observed a lot of activity behind the counter as employees began moving various objects. Consequently, realizing he had been identified, Officer Chades called for his back-up and shortly thereafter Sergeant Merle Boyer of the Medley Police Department and Special Agent John Cobban of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco entered the licensed premises. Upon inspection, one 1.75 liter bottle of Smirnoff Vodka, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold on the licensed premises, was seized from the kitchen area. Immediately outside the back door several other bottles were found, including Johnnie Walker Scotch and Jose Cuervo Tequila, which contained alcoholic beverages not authorized for sale on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Action and imposing a civil penalty in the total sum of $1,500 for such violations, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by its license and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sunny South Lodge, No. 671, holds license number 60-000784, series 11-C, authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Sunny South Lodge No. 671, located at 23 Southwest 9th Avenue, Delray Beach County, Florida (the licensed premises). At the time of the formal hearing, Sammie L. Joseph was the President and Exalted Ruler of Sunny South Lodge No. 671. Based on a complaint from the Delray Beach Police Department, Petitioner initiated an investigation on November 8, 1996, to determine whether Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by its license. On December 20, 1996, Johnnie Wilson, a Special Agent employed by Petitioner, went to the licensed premises to investigate alcoholic beverage sales to nonmembers. Agent Wilson entered the premises and paid a $3.00 entrance fee. When he paid this fee, someone stamped his hand with a mark that was not legible. The stamp was to identify patrons who had paid the cover charge. Agent Wilson was not a member of the club or a guest of any member of the club. At no time did Agent Wilson represent himself as being a member of the club or as being the guest of a member. Agent Wilson purchased from a bartender inside the premises two alcoholic beverage drinks, each containing Tanqueray gin. Agent Wilson paid $4.00 for each drink. No one, including the bartenders inside the premises, asked Agent Wilson whether he was a member of the club or the guest of a member. On January 10, 1997, Special Agent Wilson returned to the licensed premises as part of his investigation. Agent Wilson entered the premises, paid a $2.00 entrance fee, and signed a fictitious name in a spiral notebook. Agent Wilson was not a member of the club or a guest of any member of the club. At no time did Agent Wilson represent himself as being a member of the club or as being the guest of a member. Agent Wilson purchased from a bartender inside the premises two alcoholic beverage drinks, each containing Tanqueray gin. Agent Wilson paid $4.00 for each drink. No one, including the bartenders inside the premises, asked Agent Wilson whether he was a member of the club or the guest of a member. Respondent holds an alcoholic beverage club license issued pursuant to Section 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the club to sell alcoholic beverages only to members and nonresident guests. Respondent has had three prior administrative actions filed against its alcoholic beverage license for violation of Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, in 1994, 1995, and 1996. All three prior administrative actions were settled through the payment of a civil penalty. The Division has standard penalty guidelines for violations of the alcoholic beverage law which are set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code. The Division's standard penalty for a fourth occurrence violation of Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, is revocation of licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-00784, series 11-C, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1997
