Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's license number 42-55 be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. C.A. Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Charles F. Tunnicliff Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Room 210, Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. White Route 2, Box 13B Marianna, Florida 32446
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 562.11(1)(a), and 561.29(1)(a) (sale of an alcoholic beverage to an underage person) and/or 561.29(1)(a) and 561.17(3) (failure to notify Petitioner licensing agency of the transfer of ten percent or more of any financial interest, change of executive officers or directors or a divestiture or resignation of such interest or position), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 4, 2008, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed under the Florida Beverage Law, by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is subject to Petitioner’s regulatory jurisdiction, having been issued License Number 72-00497, Series 2-APS, to sell beer and wine in sealed containers for consumption off of the licensed premises only. There is no evidence that Respondent business had ever been previously cited for violation of its license or that Petitioner was investigating the premises on the basis of a complaint or allegation at the time this case arose. Charging Paragraph One 4/ Petitioner’s Special Agent and a Lieutenant, who at all times material was working as Petitioner's Special Agent, addressed “a directed enforcement issue,” the belief that because energy drinks containing alcohol had newly come on the market, there would be sales of them to underage persons. On April 25, 2008, the agents conducted undercover operations at what their paperwork shows to be a minimum of 13 alcoholic beverage retail stores in Perry, Florida, and one store in Steinhatchee, Florida, between 4:35 p.m. and 8:22 p.m. The agents testified that their operation on that date also involved even more stores in several counties. The agents’ paperwork shows they arrived at Respondent’s store at 5:11 p.m. on April 25, 2008, and that they followed standard Agency procedures. On April 25, 2008, the Agency employed M.C. as “Investigative Aide AL0015.” M.C. had worked for the Agency as an undercover operative for almost five years and previously had worked with the aforementioned two agents. On that date, M.C., a female, was 19 years old. On April 25, 2008, the agents gave M.C. a $5.00 bill with which to make “the buy.” She took no other money into Respondent’s store with her. Petitioner’s two agents testified that at 5:11 p.m., while sitting in their car parked in front of Respondent’s store, they witnessed M.C. purchase a “Sparks” from Respondent Meah. Between them, the officers’ testimony included details such as seeing that one other person was in the store when M.C. entered the store; seeing M.C. remove a Sparks can from the cooler; seeing that no conversation took place between M.C. and Respondent Meah; and seeing that no identification was requested by Mr. Meah. M.C. did not relate that anyone else was in the store at the time of her purchase. The agents provided no information as to how they saw so much detail through their car's windshield and the window of the store. Clearly, they could not have heard any conversation at that distance and under those conditions. There also is no evidence of backlighting from inside the store by which the agents could even see Huranur Rashid Meah and M.C. in silhouette so as to observe them talking or not talking. For these reasons, the only competent evidence of what occurred between M.C. and Mr. Meah is the testimony of M.C. and Mr. Meah. M.C. testified that at approximately 5:12 p.m. on April 25, 2008, M.C. presented a can of “Sparks” alcoholic beverage and a package of Orbits gum to Respondent Meah at the cash register; that he did not require identification/proof of age from her; that he did not ask her how old she was; and that he rang up her purchase, giving her $1.92 in change, the can of “Sparks,” and the gum. Huranur Rashid Meah testified that he sold only one can of Sparks at approximately 5:27 p.m. on April 25, 2008, to his long-time customer, Stephanie Lee Wood, née Johnson. At hearing, Ms. Wood presented herself as an adult, without stating her age for the record. She testified that for a significant period of time, she was in Respondent's store every day about the same time and at that time "mostly" bought a Sparks Malt Beverage from Respondent Meah. Ms. Wood is Caucasian, and M.C. is a light-skinned Negro, but they have very similar builds or silhouettes, and could be mistaken for being of a similar age. Upon observation of M.C. at hearing, the undersigned was unable to discern her age, and without testimony would not have guessed she was merely 21 years old on the date of hearing. Her photograph in evidence, taken on April 25, 2008, does not look like an under-age person, or even very much as M.C. looked when she testified at age 21. When M.C. returned from Respondent’s store to the car containing the two agents on April 25, 2009, the agents verified that she had only $1.92 on her; that she had with her a can of “Sparks” and a package of Orbits gum; and that $1.92 was an appropriate remainder for the purchase of a “Sparks” 16 oz. can and a package of Orbits gum, plus tax. Then all three of Petitioner’s operatives filled-out their on-scene paperwork. Before leaving the scene on April 25, 2008, the agents issued to Respondent Meah an Arrest/Notice to Appear/Probable Cause Affidavit. Respondent Meah signed on the bottom of this item, acknowledging receipt thereof. After repeating similar procedures multiple times throughout the remainder of the evening, Petitioner’s agents checked the can of “Sparks” they had bagged at the scene into their headquarters' secure evidence lock-up, and prepared additional paperwork at headquarters. Sparks Malt Beverage apparently contains seven percent alcohol. From differences in the paperwork filled out at the scene, the paperwork from the evidence lock-up, and the oral testimony at hearing, one could guess that the 16-oz. can allegedly purchased by the underage operative from Respondent Meah contained “Sparks Plus Lemonade,” “Sparks Malt Beverage,” or “Sparks” as an energy drink. Ultimately, the State Attorney for Taylor County, in and for the Third Judicial Circuit, issued a “nolle prosequi,” for the associated criminal case, brought against Respondent Meah,5/ and destroyed the “Sparks” can involved. No physical evidence of the can allegedly purchased by M.C. was available to be admitted in evidence during this administrative case’s disputed-fact hearing. Respondent Meah submitted in evidence an automatically printed cash register tape from his store’s single cash register. He claimed this item showed the transaction he had with Ms. Wood on April 25, 2008. The register tape shows that only one sale for the combined amount of $1.69 (the cost of a can of Sparks Malt Beverage), and for $1.19, (the cost of a package of Orbits gum), was rung up together on that date. It further shows that after tax, $1.92 was given in change to the customer. Respondent's cash register tape also shows a sales time of 5:27 p.m. on April 25, 2008. This is the only similar transaction on that date on the whole cash register receipt. Several other transactions on the tape show beer sales at $1.69 each, but no other transactions match the exact amount(s) testified-to by Meah, Wood, and Petitioner's three operatives. Based on the evidence as a whole, there is no persuasive reason to rely on the time posted on this cash register receipt as being reliable; but likewise, there is no clear evidence that the time on the receipt is not reliable. The receipt could be read to show Sparks and Orbits were sold to M.C. or that Ms. Wood purchased the Sparks and something else at that time. It could also be interpreted in a variety of other ways, but clearly, it shows only one sale matching all witnesses' testimony occurred on that date. Charging Paragraph Two On August 8, 2006, Respondent had completed and submitted to Petitioner his application for a beverage license. Section six, on page seven of that application, shows “Abdul Latif Meah” (Respondent Hurunar Rashid Meah’s father) as a 50 percent owner of the corporate Respondent (licensed premises), and further shows Respondent “Harunur Rashid Meah” as a 50 percent owner. It also shows the father as corporate president and Respondent Meah as corporate vice-president. At no time has anyone notified Petitioner that any change in the stock or ownership interest in the licensed facilities has taken place, or that the corporate officers have changed. However, as of November 26, 2007, Respondent Harunur Rashid Meah filed with the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, papers for “reinstatement” of the Respondent Corporation, and these papers show Harunur Rashid Meah, as the sole owner/president, treasurer/director of Respondent corporation. Respondent Meah's explanation of the foregoing is that: He “missed a payment.” He never dissolved the original corporation, but he needed to get the corporation reinstated or reactivated, which he did as of November 26, 2007, listing only himself on the papers required by the Division of Corporations. Respondent Meah also testified that he had signed all the papers for obtaining the alcoholic beverage license from Petitioner without understanding or reading them, and without appreciating the oath thereon that he signed, promising to tell the truth on those papers, and further promising to comply with the Florida Beverage Law. Among other requirements, the Florida Beverage Law requires notice to Petitioner of the transfer of ten percent or more of any financial interest, change of executive officers or directors, or divestiture or resignation of such interest or position. (See Conclusions of Law.) Petitioner Agency asserts that the contradiction between the August 8, 2006, disclosure of interested parties on Section Six of the Beverage Law license application and the interested parties listed on the November 26, 2007, Division of Corporations documents violates Section 561.17(3), Florida Statutes, because Mr. Meah did not notify the Petitioner Agency as he was required to do, and that the present situation is especially serious because Petitioner had previously warned Respondent of the violation. Special Agent Lastinger’s testimony is credible that he discovered the November 26, 2007, incorporation papers when he was preparing to draft the criminal and administrative charges after the April 25, 2008, undercover operation. However, his testimony that finding those papers after April 25, 2008, reminded him that he had warned Respondent Meah two years before April 25, 2008 (that is, sometime between April and December 2006) that Respondent could be prosecuted for ownership problems, is not credible or persuasive testimony, since the change of ownership, if any, can only be traced to November 2007.6/
Recommendation Upon 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 that (1) Dismisses Charging Paragraph One, sale of alcoholic beverage to an underage person; (2) Finds Respondent guilty of Charging Paragraph Two, failure to notify Petitioner of the transfer of ten percent or more of any financial interest, or change of executive officers or directors, and fines him $500.00, therefor; and (3) Requires Respondent to notify Petitioner of the current ownership interests and names of executive officers within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 56-526, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is known as the "Green Frog" and is located at 1216 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The corporate officers of Respondent are Charles J. Schoener, Marlene D. Schoener, Mitch M. Smith and Charles M. Hall. On September 27, 1983, Investigator Robert Randle of the Gulf Breeze Police Department was approached by two individuals as he exited the licensed premises of the Green Frog and was asked if he wanted to purchase some marijuana. While discussing the marijuana purchase, Randle was approached by the Green Frog doorman who was working on the premises that night. The doorman, known as "Animal," inquired of Randle if he wanted to buy a small quantity of cocaine and displayed a small plastic baggie containing a white substance which he offered to sell for $30. After paying the doorman $30 for the small package represented to be cocaine, Randle submitted the contents for chemical analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of no controlled substance. On or about February 18, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises of the Green Frog in an undercover capacity. While on the licensed premises, Randle contacted a dancer known as "Angel." Randle asked Angel where he could obtain some narcotics and she directed him to her apartment. Randle went to the apartment but was unable to purchase any drugs. He returned to the Green Frog and told Angel that he had been unsuccessful. She left Randle's presence but later delivered a partial marijuana cigarette to him on the licensed premises. Subsequent analysis of the partial cigarette showed the contents to be cannabis/marijuana. On or about February 28, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On this date, he made contact with a dancer known as "Sugar" and asked her if he could obtain some marijuana or cocaine. Sugar directed Randle to the dancer Angel's apartment where he was told he could purchase a baggie of marijuana. Upon reaching the apartment Officer Randle informed Angel that Sugar had told him he could buy a bag of marijuana from her. At this time Angel sold a baggie of marijuana to Officer Randle for $25. Subsequent analysis of the baggie's contents revealed that it contained cannabis/marijuana. On or about March 6, 1984, Officer Randle returned to the licensed premises as part of this investigation. Upon entering, Randle engaged the dancer Sugar in conversation and advised her he was looking for narcotics. Shortly thereafter, Sugar told Randle he could purchase one-quarter gram of cocaine for $25. Later, she informed him that she was obtaining the cocaine from another dancer who would only sell half-gram amounts for $50. Randle then gave Sugar $50 and observed Sugar leave his table, speak to an unidentified dancer and return to his table. Sugar then handed Randle a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance. Subsequent analysis of the contents of the bag showed that it contained cocaine. On or about March 17, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises as part of the ongoing investigation. Randle made contact with the dancer "Kelly" and the dancer "Lisa." Randle told Kelly that he had "scored" some good cocaine previously from the dancer Sugar and that he was looking for her. In response to this statement, Kelly informed Randle that she had supplied Sugar with the cocaine and that she could sell him a half-gram of cocaine for $50 that evening. Later, Randle was approached by the dancer Lisa who asked him if he was holding some cocaine. Randle informed her that he was looking for cocaine and asked her if she could sell him some. Lisa also told him that she was waiting for her supplier and that she would sell him a $50 package when the supplier arrived. While waiting for the supplier to arrive on the premises, Randle was again approached by Lisa who gave him the phone number of her supplier and suggested he call the supplier and tell him to come to the licensed premises with the cocaine. Later, a male patron arrived at the premises and was observed talking to Lisa by Randle. Shortly thereafter, both Lisa and Kelly delivered small plastic baggies containing white substances to Randle who was seated at a table. Both deliveries were made inside the lounge in plain view. Subsequent analysis confirmed that both packages contained cocaine. Beginning around late February 1984, Mr. Tim Forehand regularly sold and supplied cocaine on the licensed premises. His sales were generally in one- half gram packages and the dollar amount of such sales on the licensed premises ranged from $200 to $1800 per night. Forehand supplied the cocaine on March 17, 1984, to the dancers Lisa and Kelly who then sold this substance to Officer Randle. Forehand also sold cocaine six or eight times to a corporate officer's son, David Schoener, who worked as a bartender on the licensed premises. On one occasion, Charles Schoener barred Forehand from the licensed premises for dealing drugs. He was, however, allowed back onto the premises within one week, The testimony of Lisa Dixon, Melissa Crawford (a/k/a Sugar) and Tim Forehand indicated that drug use and sales in the licensed premises were open and extensive. Sugar testified that see had used cocaine with Charles Hall, an officer-owner, on the licensed premises. Similarly, Lisa Dixon testified that she was in the presence of Charles Schoener on an occasion when he used cocaine in the licensed premises. In their testimony, Charles Schoener and Charles Hall denied using drugs on the licensed premises. Their testimony and that of a third owner- manager, Mitch Smith, a bartender, Jim Ellis, and a dancer, Evangeline Potts, indicated that drug use and sales were rarely observed and that action was taken to bar customers or warn employees when such incidents occurred. The documentary evidence and testimony of both Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses established that Respondent had a stated policy against drug use or possession on the premises. Employee rules to this effect had been adopted and posted for over a year and periodic employee meetings were held at which the no drug policy was discussed. However, enforcement was not vigorous as indicated by the fact that Forehand was allowed to return to the Green Frog even though he had earlier been barred for drug activity. Further, Charles Schoener, the corporation president, did not discharge the dancer Kelly, even when he suspected her of illegal drug activity on the licensed premises. Much of the testimony of the witnesses with the exception of Officer Randle and Officer Kiker (who was not directly involved), was self-serving and lacking in credibility. Forehand, Dixon and Crawford have all been arrested and charged with criminal offenses. They were advised that their cooperation in this proceeding could favorably effect their sentences if convicted. Respondent's witnesses are owners and employees of the licensed premises, and thus have a stake in preserving the beverage license. In addition to their denials, the purported use of cocaine by Charles Schoener and Charles Hall on the licensed premises in the presence of their employees is inconsistent with their efforts to prohibit or at least discourage drug use. Further, the testimony of Officer Randle indicates that drug sales and use were not "wide open" as claimed by Petitioner's other witnesses. Randle visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on numerous occasions beginning September 27, 1983, but was not able to obtain a delivery of a controlled substance until February 18, 1984.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 90 days, including the emergency suspension now in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, 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 17th day of April, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the terms of probation of the Consent Agreement, effective January 12, 1990. Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the notices to Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact As to Case No. 90-2711: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondents were doing business at 3200 South Orlando Drive, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida as Cesare's Palace, under alcoholic beverage license number 69-00467, series 4-COP-S. On April 19, 1989 a formal hearing was conducted in Sanford, Florida, and presided over by Hearing Officer Mary Clark of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in which the parties were the same. On August 4, 1989, a Final Order was issued in which the Division Director adopted in toto Hearing Officer Clark's findings of fact, all but one of her conclusions of law, and adopted her recommendation for a finding of guilty. The Division Director changed the recommended penalty to a twenty day suspension and a $1,000.00 civil penalty. The twenty day suspension was to commence, and the $1,000 civil penalty was to be paid on August 23, 1989. Respondents timely appealed Petitioner's Final Order on August 14, 1989. On August 22, 1989, Petitioner stayed the imposition of the penalty pending appellate review. Respondents and Petitioner executed a Consent Agreement in settlement of the case. Accordingly, Respondents withdrew their appeal, and timely paid the $1,000.00 civil penalty. Petitioner suspended imposition of the 20 day license suspension for 12 months commencing on January 12, 1990. The Agreement and the Addendum thereto were signed by both Respondents and their attorney. Respondents agreed to abide by certain terms of probation, as set forth in the Consent Agreement, and acknowledged that violation of one or more of the terms of probation would result in the imposition of the 20 day license suspension. The terms of probation called for Respondents to affirm in writing not later than 30 days after the effective date of the Consent Agreement, to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, that certain specified tasks had been accomplished. The Consent Agreement became effective on January 12, 1990 when it was accepted by the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On or about February 11 (a Sunday) or February 12, 1990, Law Enforcement Investigator David Ramey went to the licensed premises to ascertain whether Respondents had accomplished the tasks which were to be affirmed in writing to the Division as being accomplished. The task of posting signs indicating that identification was required had been accomplished. The task to provide "written policies and procedures for employees to ensure that they are familiar with Florida drivers licenses, Florida identification cards, and passports; that they are sensitive to the importance of ensuring that alcoholic beverages are not sold to the underaged; that they are capable of, given a birth date, computing age; and that they understand that service of alcoholic beverages must be refused to those whose age and/or identification appear questionable to the employee" was not accomplished. The task of training and instructing all employees on the written policies and procedures relative to identification was not accomplished. The task of carefully monitoring employees to ensure that they are following company policy was not accomplished. No written affirmation reporting accomplishment of the above tasks was forwarded to the Division either within or without the thirty day period. The Consent Agreement included as a term of probation that Respondents become certified responsible vendors by March 1, 1990. Respondents' Application for Certification as a Responsible Vendor is dated March 5, 1990; the application was not forwarded to the Bureau of Vendor Training until April 7, 1990. Respondents had not become certified responsible vendors by March 1, 1990. William Walter Proctor was born on October 1, 1970 and has been serving as an underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco since late January or early February 1990. When serving as an underaged operative, Mr. Proctor is to bring his drivers license, and to possess only the money given to him by the investigators. If asked for identification, Mr. Proctor is instructed to provide his drivers license which accurately reflects his date of birth. If asked his age, Mr. Proctor is instructed to answer truthfully. On March 6, 1990, Proctor was serving as an underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He was working with Investigators Dave Ramey and Mark Douglas. During the evening Proctor entered the licensed premises, Cesare's Palace, located at 3200 South Orlando Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. Investigator Douglas also entered the premises. Proctor went to the bar and took a seat. The bartender took Proctor's order for a Michelob light beer, and asked to see Proctor's identification. Proctor gave the bartender his drivers license. The bartender took the license to the end of the bar, held it under a light, and then returned the license to Proctor and handed him the beer he had ordered. Proctor observed the bartender open the Michelob Light beer, and place the beer in front of Proctor. Proctor took possession of the beer, and the bartender took possession of the $1.85 provided by Proctor in payment for the beer. Proctor immediately turned the Michelob Light beer over to Investigator Douglas. Proctor identified Petitioner's Exhibit 3 as the drivers license he provided the bartender at Cesare's Palace on March 6, 1990. Mark Douglas is a law enforcement investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He, along with Investigator Ramey were working with the underaged operative William Walter Proctor on March 6, 1990. Investigator Douglas entered the licensed premises, Cesare's Palace around 9:15 p.m. on the 6th of March. Some ten minutes later, underaged operative Proctor entered the premises. Investigator Douglas observed Mr. Adams open a bottle of Michelob Light beer and place it in front of Mr. Proctor. Investigator Douglas deals with alcoholic beverages every day of his working life. He is familiar with Michelob beer, and has seen bottles of Michelob Light before. The bottle of Michelob Light he received from Mr. Proctor on the 6th of March looked like the other such bottles he had seen. Additionally, Investigator Douglas took a sample of the beer prior to destroying the remaining contents of the bottle. Investigator Douglas has been trained in identifications; drivers licenses in particular. He knows that the yellow background against which Proctor's picture is depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit 3 means that the individual to whom the license was issued was under 21 at the time of the issuance. Investigator Douglas identified Respondent Polidoro as having been seated at the end of the bar when the sale to Proctor occurred. When Mr. Adams was looking at Mr. Proctor's drivers license, Respondent Polidoro leaned forward and looked down the bar. Respondent Polidoro has very bad vision; he is both nearsighted and farsighted. His glasses were not on at the time of the events involving Adams and Proctor. Respondent Polidoro has known Adams for two years and has complete confidence in him. On March 6, 1990, Respondent Polidoro was not aware that his bartender, Adams wore reading glasses. Adams made the mistake of forgetting his glasses. He left them in his room. Thus he was without his reading glasses while tending bar at the licensed premises on March 6, 1990. Respondent Polidoro is of the opinion that he has twice been entrapped by Petitioner into selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor, and that Petitioner, on 15 other occasions has failed to entrap Respondents. As to Case No. 90-5983: Marino Benevides went to work for Respondents as the housekeeping manager of the Cavalier Motor Inn, located at 3200 South Orlando Drive, in April, 1988. On or about May 1, 1989, Benevides leased from Respondents the lounge that is part of the Cavalier Motor Inn complex. The rent was $7500 a month, and was paid to Respondent Polidoro. Although the lease agreement was reduced to writing, it was never signed. Benevides hired and paid the employees of the lounge. Benevides hired and paid for the entertainment in the lounge. Benevides paid the utility bill for the lounge. Had there been net profits generated by the lounge, the net profits would have been received by Benevides. Benevides' obligation to Respondents was to pay them a fixed sum of $7500 a month. Payment of distributors for alcoholic beverages was made by the Respondents who were then reimbursed by Benevides. Benevides could not pay the distributors directly because the liquor license was not under his name. Respondent Milazzo was aware that leasing the lounge was a violation. The Respondents had the authority to "kick out" Benevides and that is what they did on January 27, 1990. "No violations of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes during the probationary period" is a term of probation in the Consent Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents be found guilty of the following offenses: Respondents violated the terms of probation contained in the Consent Agreement, dated January 12, 1990, as follows: Respondents did not affirm to the Division, prior to February 12, 1990, that written policies and procedures for employees to ensure compliance with the Florida Beverage Laws had been established; that all employees had been properly trained in the identification of underaged persons; and did not carefully monitor all employees to ensure that they were following company policy. 1990. Respondents did not become certified responsible vendors by March 1, On March 6, 1990, during the probationary period, a bartender employed by Respondents, on the licensed premises, sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. On March 6, 1990, a bartender employed by Respondents sold an alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises to a person under 21 years of age, in violation of Sections 562.11 and 561.29, Florida Statutes, and Respondents were negligent in failing to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and maintaining surveillance over the premises. Respondents failed to maintain control of the licensed premises by leasing the premises to an independent contractor contrary to Rule 7A-3.017, Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that: Respondents' probation be revoked and that the alcoholic beverage license held by Anthony J. Milazzo and Cesare A. Polidoro, License No. 69-00467, Series 4-COP-S be suspended for 20 days. Based on the sale of an alcoholic beverage to a person under age 21 and for failure to maintain control of the licensed premises, Respondents' alcoholic beverage license, No. 69-00467, Series 4-COP-S, be suspended for 90 days, to run concurrently with the suspension for violation of probation, pay a fine of $1,000 and submit proof of compliance with the terms of the Consent Agreement prior to reinstatement of the license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance: paragraph 1 through (blank on original document-ac) Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Fretwell Deputy General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Richard A. Colegrove, Jr., Esquire 101 W. First St., Suite C Sanford, FL 32771 Leonard Ivey, Director Dept. of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph Sole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-03732SRX, for licensed premises at 411 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg. In September, 1987, and particularly on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987, the Respondent's licensed premises were open for business, including the sale of alcoholic beverages under the authority of the Respondent's license. On at least three separate occasions--on September 11, 17, and 25, 1987,--the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises at times when the service of full-course meals had been discontinued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the alcoholic beverage license of the Respondent, Acobos, Inc., license number 62-037325RX. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tim Christopoulos, President Acobos, Inc., d/b/a Christo's Cafe 411 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact 10. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Finding of Fact in foto, as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter’Division’), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, hereby enters this Final Order.
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1977, Armando Calo, through counsel, filed a Notice of Lien with DABT stating that he was a bona fide mortgagee on an alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, lic. no. 23-1901) held by the Intimo Lounge, Inc., 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, he enclosed a copy of his chattel mortgage and a check payable to DABT in the amount of $5.00. (P-1) By return letter dated February 4, 1977, C. L. Ivey, Jr., DABT's Licensing Supervisor, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Calo's Notice of Lien and stated that it would be made part of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license file. At that time, administrative license revocation proceedings were pending against Intimo Lounge, Inc. So Mr. Ivey sent a copy of his February 4, 1977 acknowledgment letter to DABT's Miami Office, and included this notation: P.S. John: You need to immediately notify Attorney Solomon's [Calo's attorney's] office if and when an order to revoke is issued. He will then go to court to seek a judicial transfer. (P-2) On March 22, 1977, Charles A. Nuzum, DABT's Director, executed an order revoking Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license. (R-1) Eight days later, on March 30, 1977, Armando Calo sued Intimo Lounge, Inc., seeking to foreclose his chattel mortgage on its alcoholic beverage license. By letter of the same date, counsel for Mr. Calo, citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, notified DABT of the filing of the foreclosure action; he also asserted that Mr. Calo had no knowledge of or participation in the causes for which the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license was revoked. Copies of subsequent pleadings filed in the action were sent to DABT's legal department. DABT thus knew the suit was filed and was aware of its continued progress. (Testimony of Barone; P-3, P-4, P-11) The Circuit Court of Dade County ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in Mr. Calo's favor. On August 17, 1979, pursuant to such judgment, the Clerk of the Court sold the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license, at public sale, to intervenor Rene Valdes, 1710 N.W. 7th Street, Suite 7201, Miami, Florida for $25,000. Notice of the sale was published in the Miami Review, a newspaper circulated in Dade County. On August 28, 1979, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Title pursuant to Chapter 45, Florida Statutes. This Certificate certified that Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, license no. 23-1901) had been sold to Rene Valdes on August 17, 1979, and that "no objections to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections." (Testimony of Valdes; P-5, P-6) Although DABT was aware of the protracted mortgage foreclosure litigation involving the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license --which it had earlier revoked -- it never protested or sought to block the foreclosure action. It was not a party to the action; neither did it attempt to become one. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) In September, 1979, a month after the judicial foreclosure sale, Nathaniel Barone, counsel for Intimo Lounge, Inc., wrote R. B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation, asking what steps were necessary to keep the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license viable. An internal memorandum suggests that DABT was, at first, unprepared to answer that question and preferred, instead, to delay answering until an application for the license was filed. But, on October 4, 1979, Harold F. X. Purnell, the Department's General Counsel replied on behalf of Secretary Burroughs: It is the Division's position that the . . . license has been and presently is revoked pursuant to the actions pre- viously taken by [DABT]. Further, that in the absence of an order of appropriate jurisdiction entered in a proceeding to which the Division is a party we are powerless to transfer such license. (Testimony of Barone; P-7, P-10) Meanwhile, Rene Valdes, notified DABT of his purchase of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license and asked that it be held in escrow while he found a suitable purchaser and location. When DABT refused, Mr. Valdes petitioned the court, which had rendered the foreclosure judgment, to require DABT to process and transfer the license. The court denied his petition, at least in part, because DABT was not a party to the proceeding. After the court hearing, Mr. Valdes, together with his attorney, Charles Kelly, and DABT's counsel, Mr. Purnell, met outside the chambers and discussed their next step. Mr. Kelly discussed seeking a mandamus ordering DABT to issue the license. Mr. Purnell suggested, instead, that Mr. Valdes find a location and purchaser for the license, then submit an application to DABT -- something which Mr. Valdes had not yet done. Although Mr. Purnell did not assure them that the application would be approved, both Mr. Valdes and Mr. Barone gained an impression that it would be. 2/ Mr. Valdes, following Mr. Purnell's suggestion, found a location and buyer, then applied for a transfer of the license. DABT's denial resulted in this proceeding. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) Under Section 561.65(1), Florida Statutes (1977), a lender licensed by the state holding a lien on an alcoholic beverage license had the right to enforcement of his lien against the license within 12 days after any order of revocation, provided it was revoked for causes which the lienholder had no knowledge and did not participate. If the lienholder purchased the license at foreclosure sale, he could operate under it or transfer it to a qualified person. Until August 17, 1980, it was DABT's long-standing practice and policy to make no distinction between licensed and unlicensed lenders (lien-holders). It allowed both licensed and unlicensed lienholders to file notice of liens against beverage licenses and honored the subsequent transfer of the license if the lien was enforced within 12 days of revocation. This practice was abruptly changed on the basis of an agency legal opinion. On August 17, 1980, one month before Gui-Dom filed its application, DABT's General Counsel rendered a legal opinion limiting Section 561.65 relief to lenders licensed by the state. After that date, until 1981, when the legislature removed the "licensed lender" language of Section 561.65, DABT applied Section 561.65 literally and only accepted liens filed by licensed lenders. (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13) But in October, 1980, DABT did not deny Gui-Dom's application for transfer of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license because Armando Calo, the lienholder, lacked a lender's license. Instead, the application was denied because the license had been earlier revoked. As later explained by Barry Schoenfeld, DABT's Chief of Licensing: 2 [DABT] felt at the time that . . . there really was no license, that the license had already been revoked, and that there was no license for the court to sell [to Valdes]. (P-13, p. 25). But Section 561.65 specifically permits liens, under specified conditions, to survive license revocation. When asked to explain DABT's position in light of Section 561.65, Mr. Schoenfeld replied, "I don't know that I can explain it." (P-13, p. 16) Neither could Mr. Schoenfeld adequately explain why, in cases similar to this, DABT has approved license transfers while, here, they have not. (P-13, p. 23) It was not until after the denial of Gui-Dom's application that DABT contended that Section 561.65, Florida Statutes (1977), provides no relief because Armando Calo was not a licensed lender. (P- 9, P-13). Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker, operates a business known as "Beverage License, Inc." He specializes in obtaining and transferring alcoholic beverage licenses for clients and has a working knowledge of the Beverage Law, including DABT rules and practice. When he purchased the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license at the judicial sale, he did not know that it had been revoked by DABT. He did, however, know that there was license revocation litigation between Intimo Lounge, Inc. and DABT. He also knew that DABT had issued an emergency order suspending Intimo Lounge, Inc.'s license; and he knew that there were circuit court foreclosure proceedings involving the license. Yet he failed to ascertain the status of the license -- either by checking the files of DABT or the circuit court. But even if he had discovered that the license had been revoked, under DABT's long-standing practice and interpretation of Section 561.65, it would have made no difference. The license would have "survived" revocation because Armando Calo had timely enforced his lien. And it could have been sold at a judicial sale and transferred to a new qualified purchaser. (Testimony of Valdes, Harris; P-13) DABT has provided no record foundation for its abrupt discontinuance of prior agency practice and policy in August, 1980, a policy which allowed both licensed and unlicensed lien holders to file and timely enforce liens against beverage licenses. This policy enabled a lien to survive license revocation; and the license, which had been revoked earlier could then be transferred by judicial sale. The only explanation given for the change in policy, a change which DABT now relies on as cause for denying Gui-Dom's application, is that the agency changed its legal interpretation of Section 561.65 (1977). (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Gui-Dom's application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-1901, series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983.
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner originally held alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP, as an individual. He transferred this license to M & S, Inc., a Florida corporation, about one year ago. Petitioner is a 50 percent shareholder in this corporation. Jimmy G. Maddox holds the other 50 percent stock interest. Petitioner and Maddox are currently engaged in civil litigation involving the corporate licensee. Respondent referred to this civil suit in its notice disapproving the transfer application, citing the pending litigation as a basis for disapproval. Petitioner has not purchased the license from the corporation or entered into any agreement in contemplation of license transfer. Rather, he believes he is entitled to the return of the license because he received no consideration for the prior transfer from either the corporation or Maddox. Alternatively, Petitioner asks that the prior transfer to the corporation be set aside due to this lack of consideration.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 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 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Fischette, Esquire Suite 1916 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert T. Sussman, Esquire 3030 Independent Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
