Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is the state agency charged with regulating the alcohol beverage and tobacco laws in Florida. Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall's Champagne Lounge, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-00231, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as McCall's Champagne Lounge which is located at 618 22nd Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. On or about February 11, 1992, Officer T. Brockman of the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) met with Respondent as licensee to discuss illegal activities which were ongoing in and around his licensed premises. Officer Brockman notified Respondent that controlled substances were being sold in and about the licensed premises and that underaged persons were being permitted to consume alcoholic beverages. Respondent was also notified of other illegal activities including weapons and firearms violations which were occurring on Friday and Saturday nights. On or about July 26, 1992, the Division's Special Agent, Cummings and other undercover law enforcement agents went to Respondent's premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, Cummings met a patron known as "Andy Griffin" regarding the purchase of marijuana. As a result of that meeting, Special Agent Cummings handed Andy Griffin $10.00 in exchange for a small plastic bag containing marijuana. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. At the time, two employees were located a few feet away from the site where the marijuana was delivered. At the time, several patrons were also openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On or about July 31, 1992, Cummings again reentered the licensed premises with other undercover law enforcement agents in furtherance of their investigation. While inside the premises, Special Agent Cummings met with an unknown patron regarding the purchase of "crack" cocaine. Subsequently Special Agent Cummings handed the unknown patron $10.00 in exchange for a small quantity of a substance which was analyzed and found to be cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At the time, several patrons inside the premises were openly smoking marijuana in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On August 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, Special Agent Cummings and other law enforcement agents reentered the licensed premises as part of their ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, on each ocassion except August 8, Special Agent Cummings purchased narcotics for $10.00. On each occasion the substance purchased by Special Agent Cummings was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. During the August 8, 1992 visit by Special Agent Cummings and the other law enforcement agents, several patrons were observed openly consuming marijuana in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At no time did Respondent or his employees make efforts to prevent that activity from occurring inside the licensed premises. On each occasion while in the premises, Special Agent Cummings observed several patrons openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of employees. At the outset of the narcotics investigation, Officer Tim Brockman met with Respondent and advised him that he was a community police officer who was on call and would be walking the "beat" in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that he was there to improve the quality of life and that he would be in contact with community leaders to try to get a handle on the extensive criminal activity which appeared to be ongoing in and around the licensed premises. As part of their efforts, Officer Brockman tried to develop a crime watch as the community residents felt threatened by the extensive criminal activity ongoing in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman advised Respondent that their primary goal would be to try to rid the area of drug sales. Respondent was specifically advised of the extensive drug activities that were ongoing both inside and outside of the licensed premises. Respondent's cooperation and assistance was requested by Officer Brockman and be agreed to assist. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that loitering was a problem outside the building and that alcoholic sales were being made in the building to minors. Finally, Officer Brockman told Respondent that he had observed patrons purchasing alcoholic beverages in the bar and who would later bring the open containers outside into the parking areas in and around the building in apparent violations of the local ordinances. Officer Brockman analyzed the phone calls which had been logged through the St. Petersburg Police Departments switchboard from the lounge and for law enforcement assistance in that area. The number of calls to Respondent's lounge greatly exceed the number of calls for law enforcement assistance in other areas of the City. Josephine McCall, Respondent's wife, denies that she ever saw drugs in the licensed premises. Ms. McCall maintains that Respondent would "come home sick as he could not stand the smell of marijuana." Thomas E. Hines, is a patron who occasionally frequents the bar during the early evening hours. During the times that he has frequented the club, he has not witnessed ellicit drugs being sold in the area nor would he recognize "reefer" if he saw it. Kathy Burgess has been a barmaid at Respondent's lounge in excess of thirteen years. Ms. Burgess contends that Respondent did not allow drug sales to occur and that if such sales were made, she told employees to "get them out of the premises." Bonny Bostick serves as a janitor at Respondent's lounge and works on the admissions door on Friday and Saturday nights. Bostick recalls having to get Respondent to curtail drug activities on four or five occasions. 0/ To the extent that the testimony of Respondent and witnesses J. McCall, T. Hines, K. Burgess and B. Bostick is in conflict with that of Officers Cummings and Brockman, their testimony is not credible. The testimony of Officers Cummings and Brockman is more credible and is more worthy of belief as they had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. At all times throughout the investigation, Respondent was in the licensed premises while the illegal activities referred to herein were taking place. Respondent's employees either ignored or overlooked illegal activities as it was occurring inside the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order prevailing that Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall Champagne Lounge, license number 62-00231, series 2-COP be revoked. It is further recommended that this location be deemed ineligible for having an alcoholic beverage license issued for the maximum period allowable under the alcoholic beverage law. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of November, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage License No. 58-1090, Series 2APS. Respondent is a corporation which owns and operates several convenience stores in the Orlando, Florida area. On February 19, 1983, David Aaron Morgan purchased twelve cans of Budweiser beer at the Respondent's "Pore Jack's store located at 2233 Goldenrod Road, in Orlando, Florida. The purchase was made from a Mr. Claude P. Gillenwater, a clerk and employee at the store. Mr. Morgan had purchased beer from Mr. Gillenwater on at least three (3) prior occasions. At the time of his first purchase of beer from Gillenwater, David Morgan was required to show identification. He showed Mr. Gillenwater a restricted driver's license on which the year of birth appeared to be 1963. Mr. Morgan's date of birth is July 1, 1965. On February 19, 1983, Mr. Gillenwater did not check Mr. Morgan's identification. Mr. Morgan had never informed Mr. Gillenwater that he was underage. He knew Mr. Gillenwater would not serve him beer if he knew he was underage. The information on the restricted license was unclear because the license had been partially mutilated in the washing machine in the Morgan home. David Morgan is in the eleventh grade at Colonial High School. He is 5'8" tall and weighs approximately 160-170 pounds. He wears a mustache and has for over a year. After purchasing the beer, David Morgan left the store and walked to a car in the parking lot where two friends were waiting in a car. Mr. Morgan was observed leaving the store with the beer by Beverage Officers Homer Kenneth Rigsby and Claude E. Cruz. The beverage officers followed Mr. Morgan and his friends as they drove away from the store and stopped them a short distance away. Mr. Morgan was placed under arrest and taken to his home, where his parents were informed of the purchase of beer. It was then verified by a driver's license produced by Mr. Morgan's mother that he was, in fact, not of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages. Prior to the February 19, 1983, incident, Mr. Gillenwater had been an employee with Respondent for six (6) years. He worked different shifts on an as need basis and the Respondent had never received any complaints regarding the performance of his duties. At the time of his initial employment, Mr. Gillenwater received training and instruction regarding his duties and specifically his responsibilities in assuring compliance with the beverage laws. After his initial training , Mr. Gillenwater was required to work under the supervision of the manager of the store or an experienced cashier until he became familiar enough with the policies and procedures of the company. All employees, and specifically Mr. Gillenwater, were instructed in checking identifications and in the Respondent's strict policy against sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Mr. Gillenwater was fired by Respondent as a result of this incident. The store in question had a sign posted informing customers that they must be 19 years of age to purchase alcoholic beverages and that a Florida driver's license would be required as identification. (See Respondent's Exhibit 1.) There was also a sign reflecting the date prior to which a customer had to have been born in order to be able to purchase alcoholic beverages. Respondent's employees were instructed to require a driver's license as identification each time a purchase of alcoholic beverages was made by anyone who appeared under 30 years of age. They were required to do this until they became familiar with the particular individual and recognized him on sight as a person who had previously provided proper identification. There was no evidence that Respondent had had any previous violations at the store involved or at any of its other stores. During most of the hours the store is open, a manager or assistant manager is on duty supervising the cashiers. Respondent had no notice or information that any of its employees were failing to follow its procedures regarding the requirement for proper identification.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of the violation charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charge be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 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 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Aldo Icardi, Esquire Post Office Box 879 Winter Park, Florida 32790 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Executive Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue By notice to show cause, petitioner charged that respondent, individually or through the acts of its agent/employee, violated the provisions of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by selling an alcoholic beverage on its licensed premises to a person under the age of 21. Respondent requested a formal hearing on the charges, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing, petitioner called three witnesses and offered three exhibits which were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered no exhibits. A transcript of the hearing was not ordered, and the parties were granted leave until August 21, 1989 to file proposed findings of fact. Petitioner timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A ruling on each of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been made and is reflected in the Appendix to this recommended order. On August 24, 1989, respondent filed a letter which is here deemed to be his proposed findings of fact; however, his filing was untimely.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Coast Line Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Toms Texaco, held an alcoholic beverage license number 60-04813, series 2- APS for the premises known as Toms Texaco in Lantana, Florida at 401 N. Dixie Highway. Mr. Thomas Przybylski is the President of respondent and appeared on behalf of the licensee. On or around April 4, 1989, petitioner's investigator conducted an investigation of respondent's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. The investigation was prompted by complaints received by petitioner from the Lantana Police Department. Petitioner's practice in making such investigations was to employ an underaged person and send the underaged person onto the licensed premises to purchase an alcoholic beverage. The underaged person was instructed not to carry any form of identification and to respond truthfully if asked his age or for identification. Julio A. More was employed by petitioner as an Investigative Aide. On April 4, 1989, following petitioner's instructions, Mr. More, who was eighteen at the time and appeared to be no older than his age, entered the licensed premises at issue. It was a busy afternoon at Toms Texaco. Mr. More picked a beer out of the inventory and attempted to purchase it from Mr. Przybylski, who was working that afternoon. Mr. Przybylski asked Mr. More if he had any identification to which Mr. More replied that he had none. Mr. Przybylski then sold Mr. More the beer. Petitioner's investigator witnessed the sale and confiscated the tendered beer. Mr. Przybylski as an employee and officer of respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an individual who was eighteen at the time of the sale. Accordingly, respondent is guilty of selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. The proof demonstrated that petitioner has promulgated disciplinary guidelines for offenses similar to the one at issue; and that the appropriate penalty in this case would be the imposition of a fine of $1,000 and twenty-day suspension of the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing on respondent an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspending respondent's license for a period of twenty days. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of September 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 7th day of September 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO.89-3006 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. Irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas John Przybylski, Jr. Coast Line Petroleum, Inc. 10670 Cypress Bend Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33498 Lt. Debbie Pfitzenmaier Elisha Newton Dimick Building 111 Georgia Avenue, Room 207 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey Director The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 39-651, series 4-COP, which applies to its business known as Library Lounge, located at 10924 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Beverage Officer Lloyd entered Respondent's licensed premises on August 7, 1980, to conduct an undercover investigation. He was approached by two dancers in bikini costumes who introduced themselves as Billy Joe (or B.J.) and Brenda. Billy Joe twice asked him to buy her drinks, which he did (Counts 1 and 2). He also purchased a drink for Brenda at her request (no charge). Lloyd saw Billy Joe and Brenda perform their dances on a raised stage. Lloyd returned to the licensed premises on August 8, 1980, and was again approached by the dancer Billy Joe, who asked him to buy her a drink. Lloyd purchased the drink as requested (Count 4). Lloyd returned to the licensed premises on October 14, 1980, where he was approached by dancers in bikini costumes who introduced themselves as Deanna and Margie. They asked him to buy drinks, and Lloyd purchased two drinks for each of these dancers (Counts 8, 13, 14, 15). He also observed them performing on the stage. Beverage Officer Jones entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on August 7, 1980. He was approached by the dancer, Brenda, who asked him to purchase her a drink. Jones purchased the drink as requested (Count 3). He observed Brenda dance on the stage while attired in a bikini costume. Jones entered the licensed premises on October 14, 1980, in an undercover capacity and was approached by the dancer, Margie. Jones purchased three drinks for Margie at her request (Counts 10 and 12). She stated that the dancers were paid one dollar for each drink purchased on their behalf by a customer. Beverage Officer Kiker entered the licensed premises on August 7, 1980, in an undercover capacity. He was approached by the dancer, Brenda, who twice asked him to buy drinks. Kiker purchased the drinks as requested (no charge). He observed Brenda dance on stage. She was attired in a two piece G-string costume. Kiker entered the licensed premises on October 14, 1980, in an undercover capacity. The dancers, Deanna and Margie, asked him to buy them drinks. He purchased the drinks as requested (Counts 6 and 11). He also purchased a drink for Deanna in response to her request made while she was dancing on stage for somebody to buy her a drink (Count 7). Kiker identified Deanna as Deanna Hill and Margie as Margaret San Felize at their arrest on October 24, 1980. On October 14, 1980 Kiker had paid Tammy Yates, the bartender for Deanna's drink and observed that she noted the transaction on a pad by the cash register. He further observed that the pad had four names on it. At the October 24 arrest, Tammy advised Kiker that she kept a tally of the drinks purchased for the dancers.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of charges contained in Counts 1 through 4, 6 through 8, and 10 through 15 of the Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gerald P. McGuire, holds alcoholic beverage license number 39-675, 4-COP issued by Petitioner. On September 28, 1981, Petitioner's Beverage Officer entered the licensed premises of Respondent at 14975 N. Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. He advised the manager on duty, Mr. Gerald P. McGuire, Jr., that he intended to inspect the licensed premises. The manager did not object, and the inspection was conducted. Petitioner's Beverage Officer observed numerous open bottles of alcoholic beverages in the dispensing area on which the stamps and labels were excessively worn. He therefore seized the open bottles listed above and, in conjunction with other beverage officers, performed field tests to determine whether or not the contents were adulterated. The field tests indicated that the contents of all bottles listed above had been adulterated. Petitioner selected a sample of the seized bottles to be further tested by an independent chemical laboratory. The following sample was furnished to the laboratory: Seagrams VO - (2 Liters) Seagrams Seven - (2 Liters) Cutty Sark - (2 Quarts) Johnnie Walker Black Label Scotch - (1 Quart) DeWars White Label Scotch - (1 Liter) J & B Scotch - (1 Liter) Canadian Club - (1 Liter) Tests conducted by the independent laboratory established that the contents of each of the above samples was not that listed on the label.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-675, 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald P. McGuire, Sr. McGuire Enterprises, Inc. 14975 N. Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Charles A. Nuzum, 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 The issue presented is whether Respondent violated the Final Order of Petitioner by failing to pay $1,250 to Petitioner on or before the expiration of 30 days after the entry of the Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to license number 15-02311, Series 4COP SRX. The licensed premises are located at 680 George J. King Boulevard, Port Canaveral, Florida, 32920. On October 2, 2000, Petitioner entered a Final Order that required Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,250 within 30 days of the date of entry of the order. Respondent appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the Final Order. Respondent failed to pay any portion of the administrative fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500, pursuant to Rule 61A-2.022(8); and permanently revoking alcoholic beverage license number 15- 02311, Series 4COP SRX. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Raymond J. Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Capt. German Garzon Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 North Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,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 10th day of December, 1982.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue 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 was licensed by Petitioner, having been issued license number 60-01280, Series 1- APS. No dispute exists that such license permits Respondent to make packaged sales of beer and wine at its establishment. Respondent's last known address is 148 West Avenue A, Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent's establishment is a convenience store. On or about April 17, 2002, Jeremiah Alexander Maxie went to Respondent's establishment for the specific purpose of attempting to purchase beer. Mr. Maxie is employed as an investigative aide for Petitioner. At the time that he visited Respondent's establishment, Mr. Maxie was under 21 years of age; he was 17 years of age, having been born on August 10, 1984. Mr. Maxie did nothing to alter his appearance in an attempt to affect his age. Mr. Maxie attempted to purchase beer at twelve other locations on April 17, 2002. He was paid $35 by Petitioner for that day. Mr. Maxie entered Respondent's establishment at approximately 4:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, approximately 20 seconds later, Petitioner's Special Agent Danny Stoops, who was undercover, entered Respondent's establishment. Agent Stoops observed the actions of Mr. Maxie. Agent Stoops is a 24-year veteran with Petitioner. He gave Mr. Maxie instructions as to what to do. Agent Stoops instructed Mr. Maxie to attempt to purchase a Budweiser product and, if the clerk requested identification, for Mr. Maxie to politely set the beer down and leave. Mr. Maxie proceeded to the rear of Respondent's establishment to the coolers. He removed a can of beer, a Budweiser product, and proceeded to the cash register. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the particular type of Budweiser product. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie proceed from the coolers to the cash register although he did not observe the product that Mr. Maxie had obtained. Mr. Maxie gave the cashier/clerk, Armando Rodriguez, who is Respondent's owner, U.S. Currency as payment for the beer. Mr. Rodriguez placed the Budweiser product in a paper bag and gave Mr. Maxie a receipt, but Mr. Maxie did not look at the receipt. Mr. Maxie departed Respondent's establishment. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the denomination of currency that he gave to Mr. Rodriguez or the amount that he had paid for the beer. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie give Mr. Rodriguez the currency but did not observe the denomination. Agent Stoops departed Respondent's establishment approximately 15 to 20 feet behind Mr. Maxie. When they were outside, the purchased Budweiser product was given to Agent Stoops by Mr. Maxie. Both Agent Stoops and Mr. Maxie initialed the paper bag into which Mr. Rodriguez had placed the Budweiser product. Agent Stoops placed the Budweiser product in an evidence bag, tagged it with an evidence receipt bearing a control number, and secured the bagged evidence in the trunk of his vehicle. Agent Stoops removed the bagged evidence from the trunk of his vehicle and placed it in Petitioner's evidence vault. For hearing, Agent Stoops retrieved the bagged evidence from the evidence vault. The Budweiser product presented at hearing was a can of Bud Light Beer, which was still in the paper bag in which the beer was placed at the time of purchase. No challenge to the chain of custody of the can of beer was made and no problem exists as to the chain of custody of the can of beer. No receipt for the purchase of the Budweiser product was included in the bagged evidence. Agent Stoops could not independently recall that a receipt was presented to him by Mr. Maxie. Respondent entered into evidence cash register receipts for April 17, 2002, which do not reflect the purchase of any alcoholic beverage. However, the cash register receipts reflect, among other things, "taxable" and "grocery" items, not the particular items themselves, and "meat"; thereby, the cash register receipts differentiate only between "grocery" and "taxable" and "meat" items. Further, the cash register receipts are numbered 058616 through 058619, with times of day reflecting 16:05 through 16:09, and 058624 through 058627, with times of day reflecting 16:46 through 16:52. Not included in the cash register receipts are receipts numbered 058620 through 058623, with times of day reflecting 16:10 through 16:45. With the missing numbered-cash register receipts included, a total of 12 transactions were completed, but only eight transactions were offered and admitted into evidence. No explanation was presented for the missing eight transactions. Taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of the purchase of the Budweiser product by Mr. Maxie, not having a receipt is insufficient to show that the beer-purchase transaction did not occur. Moreover, the evidence is clear and convincing that the beer-purchase transaction did occur. The product purchased at Respondent's establishment by Mr. Maxie was a can of beer, a Budweiser product, a Bud Light. At the time of hearing, Mr. Rodriguez was 76 years of age and had owned Respondent's establishment for 36 years. He is Respondent's agent. Mr. Rodriguez speaks Spanish. At the time of hearing, an interpreter was provided for him. Mr. Rodriguez denies that he saw Mr. Maxie in Respondent's establishment and denies that he sold any beer to Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez failed to realize to whom he sold the can of beer. At the time Mr. Maxie purchased the can of beer from Respondent's establishment, Mr. Rodriguez was engaged in a conversation with another gentleman. Mr. Rodriguez did not ask Mr. Maxie any questions or ask for his identification. Mr. Maxie said nothing to suggest that he was 21 years of age or older. As a matter of fact, no evidence was presented that any conversation took place between Mr. Maxie and Mr. Rodriguez. The evidence further suggests that Mr. Rodriguez paid very little attention to Mr. Maxie even at the time of the purchase of the beer. Mr. Rodriguez did not knowingly and willfully sell the can of beer to a minor, i.e., Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez was negligent and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in preventing the sale of the can of beer to Mr. Maxie. No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order: Finding that Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, violated Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Imposing a fine of $1,000.00 payable within a time deemed appropriate; and Suspending the license of Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, for seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Valentin Rodriguez, Jr., Esquire Valentin Rodriguez, P.A. 318 Ninth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Danny Stoops, Agent Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 North Congress Avenue, No. 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
