The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th day of May, 1976, Mary Lener Arnold, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else to have unlawfully in their possession on Mary Lener Arnold's licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold, t/a Buggs' Drive Inn, held on May 14, 1976 and now holds beverage license no. 50-2 series 1-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This licensed premises is located on Main Street, Greenville, Florida. On May 14, 1976, a confidential informant with the Division of Beverage went to the licensed premise of the Respondent in Greenville, Florida and purchased a bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted under a 1-COP license. This confidential informant was working for officer B.C. Maxwell of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Officer Maxwell along with other officers with the Division of Beverage and officers of the Madison County, Sheriff's office returned to the licensed premises on May 14, 1976 and in looking through the licensed premises found a black bag containing 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka on the licensed premises. This Smirnoff Vodka was not permissible on the licensed premises under a 1-COP license. On the licensed premises at the time of the inspection was one Patsy Jackson Williams who indicated that she was in charge of the premises. The confidential informant who had purchased the bottle of alcoholic beverage indicated that his purchase had been made from the same Patsy Jackson Williams. The black bag with its contents of 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. The alcoholic beverage purchased by the confidential informant is Petitioner's Exhibit #4 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days based upon the charge proven in the hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mary Lener Arnold t/a Buggs' Drive Inn Main Street Greenville, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of a controlled substance (for which adjudication was withheld) is sufficient to support the imposition of discipline with regard to his alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to issue beverage licenses pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Prior to September 11, 2000, Respondent, doing business as Smiley's, was the owner and holder of a beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP, which permits him to sell beer and wine for consumption on premises. On October 9, 1998, Respondent was charged by information with sale and delivery of cocaine. He was acquitted of that charge on May 12, 2000. Subsequently in a separate incident, Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine and on September 11, 2000, pleaded no contest to that charge. Pursuant to Respondent's timely request for formal proceedings, Petitioner's counsel initiated discovery in the course of this administrative proceeding through a Request for Admissions to which Respondent failed to respond. Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this circumstance and, upon motion of Petitioner, the Request for Admissions was deemed admitted. Those admissions establish that Respondent entered a no contest plea on September 11, 2000, to the charge of possession of cocaine and that the plea bargain negotiated at that time also included two days' incarceration. Additionally, the admissions establish that Respondent is aware that possession of cocaine is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years. Respondent's own testimony is uncorroborated by other direct evidence and fails to establish that he possesses good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Kwilecki, Jr., Esquire 629 North Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. John P. Szabo Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended or revoked on charges that its licensed lounge: (1) was resorted to be persona using illicit drugs or was used for the keeping or selling of' illicit drugs; and (2) constituted a public nuisance by virtue of such illicit drug activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Licensed Premises Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00312 (Series 2- COP). Under this license he owns and operates a lounge known as the "Laugh Inn" at 49 Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The lounge sells beer, wine, and food to its customers. (Testimony of W. Flynn; P-13.) The Laugh Inn ("licensed premises" or "premises") has two main rooms with a connecting passageway. The front room contains tables, chairs, pool tables, and a bar. To the rear of the bar is an enclosed storage room separating the front from the rear room. The passageway connecting to the rear room is approximately 6 feet wide. On the north aide of the passageway are three restrooms. The rear room contains additional tables and chairs, pool tables, pinball machines, and a "football" table. Because the two main rooms are separated by the storage room, a person tending bar in the front room would be unable to see the rear room area. The rear room ceilings contain three exhaust fans to remove smoke and odors. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) The licensed premises does not include any area outside the lounge. No property outside of the lounge building was included in the sketch attached to respondent's application for an alcoholic beverage license. Be owns land in back of the premises on which he has placed a small trailer. Be owns a narrow strip of land on each side of the premises and a 3-foot-wide strip of land in front, facing Navy Boulevard. The front parking area--where customers ordinarily park their cars--is neither owned nor controlled by respondent. This parking area is on publicly owned property. Several windows on the premises face the parking area, but they have curtains which are ordinarily closed during business hours. There are no other windows on the premises from which the front parking area can be seen. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) II. Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises In April, 1982, undercover officers from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office began an investigation to determine whether violations of the controlled substances law were occurring on the licensed premises. On April 20, 1982, Deputy Linda Dees of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 25.6 grams of cannabis (marijuana) --from Eric Babcock, a patron of the premises. The delivery took place on the premises at the front bar, where Deputy Bees and Mr. Babcock were seated. He placed the bag of cannabis into her purse--which was on her lap below the bar--and she paid him $35. (Testimony of Dees.) On that same day, April 20, 1982, Deputy Marilyn Medlin of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 12 grams of cannabis--from Mike Milstead, another patron. Although discussions for the purchase took place in the licensed premises--in a normal tone of voice- -the drugs were delivered and paid for in a vehicle located in the parking area in front of the licensed premises--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin; Seven days later, on April 27, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a controlled substance--three tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) --from Lydia Quinonas, another patron. The purchase and delivery took place in the rear room of the premises, where Deputy Medlin and Ms. Quinonas were seated. The three tablets were small in size--smaller than ordinary aspirin tablets; Ms. Quinonas delivered the tablets by placing the palm of her hand over the deputy's upturned palm and dropping the tablets. During this transaction, several other persons were in the rear room playing pool. The area was well lighted. (Testimony of Medlin.) On the same day--April 27, 1982--Deputy Dees purchased approximately 21.7 grams of cannabis from Steve Sweat and Kenny Crabtree, patrons of the bar. They also gave Deputy Bees the remaining portion of a marijuana cigarette. The delivery and sale of these drugs took place outside the licensed premises in a truck parked in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. Deputy Dees placed the drugs inside her purse where they remained until delivered to law enforcement authorities. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 3, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a bag containing approximately 18 grams of cannabis from Thurston Raines, a bar patron. The delivery took place in a private vehicle parked in a well-lighted area in front of the premises. (Neither the vehicle nor the area in which it was parked was owned or controlled by respondent.) Deputy Medlin immediately placed the cannabis into her purse where it remained until delivered to the Sheriff's Office. (Testimony of Medlin.) Later in the evening on May 3, 1982, Deputy Dees i1purchased approximately 17 grams of cannabis from Eric Babcock, a patron of the bar. Mr. Babcock removed a grocery bag concealed above the ceiling in the rear room of the premises. They then proceeded to a private vehicle parked in front of the premises where Deputy Dees selected one of what appeared to be several bags of cannabis in the grocery sack. After placing the bag and the grocery sack in her purse, they returned to the rear room of the premises, where Mr. Babcock returned the grocery bag to its hiding place. (Deputy Dees concealed the grocery bag in her purse when they reentered the premises because Mr. Babcock did not want to be seen carrying it.) The ceiling of the rear room was recently replaced and respondent was not informed of any cannabis having been stored in the ceiling. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 4, 1982, Louis Austie gave Deputy Medlin the remaining portion (.3 gram) of a marijuana cigarette. The cigarette was being smoked by several persons standing outside the front door of the licensed premises. When a sheriff's patrol car entered the lot, Mr. Austie quickly extinguished the cigarette and gave it to Deputy Medlin. This drug transaction took place on property neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin.) During the evening of May 14, 1982, Deputy Medlin telephoned Kay Towney, the night bartender on the premises, and asked her if she knew anyone who would sell her marijuana. Ms. Towney replied that there was a customer on the premises who would sell it to her. Deputy Medlin then proceeded to the premises where Ms. Towney introduced her to Tom Suggs, a customer. After negotiating the sale of .25 ounces of marijuana, Deputy Medlin and Mr. Suggs proceeded to a private car in the front parking area; the delivery took place inside the parked vehicle. (In a subsequent statement given to police officers, Ms. Towney stated that she was aware of drug trafficking on the licensed premises; that she helped arrange drug transactions between her customers; that she knew Eric Babcock had hidden drugs in the ceiling; and that she knew Mr. Babcock, Mark Padgett, and one other person were drug dealers.) (Testimony of Medlin, Kiker.) On May 14, 1982, Mark Padgett approached Deputy Medlin on the premises and asked her if she wanted to buy some quaaludes. She responded that she did. He then delivered a drug to Deputy Medlin in the parking lot area in front of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that drug was not a controlled substance. (Testimony of Medlin.) On several occasions during her investigation, Deputy Medlin observed people in the rear room of the premises smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Since she is familiar with the odor of marijuana smoke, her conclusion is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Medlin.) On three or four separate occasions during April, 1982, Stewart Stamm- -a person familiar with the appearance and odor of burning marijuana--saw customers smoking marijuana in the rear room of the licensed premises. He also has purchased marijuana from patrons of th& bar approximately 30 times. (Testimony of Stamm.) On May 26, 1982, Deputy Medlin engaged in an open and loud conversation with Kay Towney, the night bartender. The conversation took place at the bar on the premises and concerned the use of quaaludes. Other customers were 5 to 7 feet away. Ms. Towney then sold to Deputy Medlin what she represented to be two quaalude tablets. 2/ (Testimony of Medlin.) On April 20, 1982, Deputy Medlin observed Kay Towney remove what appeared to be brushes from a compartment in the pool table in the rear room on the premises. A few minutes later, a patron returned to the pool table, opened the compartment and inserted several clear plastic bags containing what appeared to be marijuana. (The bags have not been recovered, so their contents have not been definitively identified.) (Testimony of Medlin.) III. Respondent was Unaware of Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises Respondent did not know that illicit drug activities had occurred and were occurring on or adjacent to the licensed premises; neither did Frances Flynn, his wife, who acted as the night manager until October, 1981, when she left for eight months to care for her terminally ill brother-in the State of Washington; neither did Doris Sheldon, the daytime bartender; neither did Carolyn Burch, the employee who closed the premises each morning at 2:30 a.m. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn, Sheldon, Burch.) Respondent employed Larry Harrison and Pat Randolph to clean in and around the licensed premises on a daily basis. Mr. Harrison and Ms. Randolph would occasionally find in the parking area the remains of what they suspected to be marijuana cigarettes; but there is no evidence that they ever informed respondent of their suspicions. (Testimony of Harrison, Randolph.) No law enforcement officers, including agents of the DABT, have ever informed respondent that they suspected or had reason to believe that illicit drug activities were occurring on the licensed premises. Several regular customers of the bar testified that they had never sheen controlled substances being used, sold, or stored inside or outside the licensed premises. (Testimony of Saucier, Settles, Finney, Donlon.) All of the purchases of the controlled substances described in section II above were initiated by the undercover officers involved. Most of the described purchases and deliveries of controlled substances occurred in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent and which is not part of the licensed premises. IV. Failure to Diligently Supervise and Maintain Surveillance of Licensed Premises During Evening Hours The illicit drug transactions described above occurred, for the most part, during the evening hours. During those hours--from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.--Kay Towney served as the night bartender. Frances Flynn, wife of respondent, ordinarily served as the night-shift manager and supervised the night bartender; but Ms. Flynn was absent from October, 1981, to May, 1982, when she was caring for her ill brother in Washington. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn.) Ms. Towney was hired by respondent toward the end of 1981--while his wife was in Washington. At the job interview, respondent asked her if she used drugs; she answered she had used marijuana in the past. During April and May, 1982--when the drug transactions already mentioned took place--Ms. Towney was the only employee regularly on the premises during the night shift. Although respondent considered her a bartender, she considered herself the night manager. (Testimony of W. Flynn.) In April and May, 1982--when the alleged violations occurred-- respondent did not normally supervise and maintain surveillance of the premises during the night shift. He would open the bar at 10:00 a.m. and work there throughout the day, until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Then he would go home; Ms. Towney was instructed to call him if any problems arose. During Ms. Flynn's eight- month absence, respondent employed David Saucier to periodically inspect the premises during the night shift. Mr. Saucier inspected the premises approximately ten times and did not observe any illicit drug activities on or adjacent to the premises. (Testimony of W. Flynn, Saucier.) During the time in question--April and May, 1982-- it is concluded that respondent was negligent in that he did not exercise due diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance of the licensed premises during the evening hours. illicit drug activities occurred repeatedly on the premises-- particularly in the rear room. Such activities were open and persistent and recur- ring. Marijuana was openly smoked in the rear room. The fact that the three exhaust fans may have helped remove the smoke--thus limiting it to the rear room--does not excuse respondent's failure to monitor the rear room area. The person nominally in charge of the premises during the night shift was aware of the illicit drug activity; she not only condoned it but actively participated in it. Although respondent was normally absent from the premises during the night shift, he employed a friend to inspect the premises only about ten times during the night-shift manager's eight-month absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage' license be suspended for sixty (60) days, subtracting therefrom the number of days such license has been suspended due to the emergency suspension order served May 28, 1982. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 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 29th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Should Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089 be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, operated as a sole proprietorship known as Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida. Respondent held a series SRX4COP Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089, issued by DABT, which authorized Respondent to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises in connection with the restaurant operation of Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge. Respondent's beverage license did not authorize Respondent to sell any form of alcoholic beverage for consumption off of the licensed premises. By letter dated February 10, 1997, the Fort Meade Police Department requested investigative assistance from DABT concerning an allegation that controlled substances were being sold at Respondent's licensed premises as well as another location unrelated to Respondent. As a result of the request for assistance from the Fort Meade Police Department, DABT instituted an investigation concerning the complaint. In addition to assigning the complaint to a Special Agent, Cleveland McKenzie, DABT requested assistance from the Polk County Sheriff's Department. At approximately 9:45 p.m. on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie, accompanied by Detective Bobby Neil, Polk County Sheriff's Office, entered Respondent's licensed premises, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity. While in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the person tending bar (bartender) for "a beer for the road." In response to Agent McKenzie's request, the bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag, with the beer inside, to McKenzie who then paid for the beer and left the licensed premises without attempting to conceal the beer on his person and without being stopped by any person providing services on the licensed premises. Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:00 p.m. Both Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil described the bartender as a stout, light-skinned, black male approximately 20 to 25 years of age. Neither Larry Fisher, manager of the licensed premises, nor Reginald Johnson, Respondent's adult son, fit this description. The person tending bar at the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was neither Larry Fisher nor Reginald Johnson, notwithstanding the testimony of Larry Fisher or Reginald Johnson to the contrary which I find lacks credibility. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil entered Respondent's licensed premises located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity Before leaving the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the bartender (the same individual tending bar while Agent McKenzie was in the licensed premises on April 18, 1997) for "a beer to go." The bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag to Agent McKenzie. The bartender refused the offer of payment for the beer from Agent McKenzie's indicating that the beer was "on him." Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:55 p.m. on April 26, 1997. Upon leaving the licensed premises, Agent McKenzie carried the unopened bottle of beer in the paper bag without any attempt to conceal the beer on his person. Likewise, upon leaving the licensed premises, Detective Neil carried a half-full opened bottle of beer which he had purchased earlier from the bartender without any attempt to conceal the bottle on his person. In order to leave the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil had to go pass two individuals who were providing services to Respondent's licensed premises. Neither of these individual, nor any other person providing services to Respondent's licensed premises on April 26, 1997, prevented Agent McKenzie or Detective Neil from leaving the licensed premises with the beer. There was no evidence presented By DABT to show that while Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, that the bartender sold or gave any other customer an alcoholic beverage packaged to go or that any other customer left the licensed premises with an alcoholic beverage. Respondent was not present in his licensed premises during the time that Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were there on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997. There is insufficient evidence to show that the bartender's action on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was the result of Respondent's negligence, intentional wrongdoing, lack of diligence, lack of training for the employees, or lack of notice to customers that any alcoholic beverage purchased had to be consumed on the licensed premises. After the visits to the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie concluded that there was no basis to the alleged complaint that controlled substances were being sold on the licensed premises. The designation "SRX" identifies a beverage license issued to business which is to be operated as restaurant. As a result of its investigation of Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, DABT, as is its normal practice, examined the Respondent's licensed premises for continuing requirements applicable to special licenses such as a "SRX" license. Respondent is an experienced business person with 15 years experience in operating licensee premises. Respondent knew at the time of obtaining the license at issue in May 1995 that he had an obligation to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent met the 51 percent requirement in each bi-monthly period. Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997, listed the total amount of revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages. However, this figure for alcoholic beverages was not supported by any daily records of sales. Respondent maintained no records as to the daily sales of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. Although Respondent presented guest checks for the daily sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, the total of these checks for each month in question did not support the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for each corresponding month. Based on the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement and other records furnished by Respondent for the months of January, February, March, and April 1997, the percentage of total gross revenue (sales of food, non-alcoholic beverages, and alcoholic beverages) derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997 was approximately 45 percent, 46 percent, 46 percent, and 44 percent, respectively.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License, Number SRX4COP 63-04089 DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0792 Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Kenneth Glover, Esquire 505 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-255, Series 12, RT, which licensed premises is located at Seminole Greyhound Park, a greyhound racing facility in Casselberry, Florida. The officers of this corporation who are accused of filing false personal questionnaires with Petitioner are Paul Dervaes, Jack Demetree, William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick. Paul Dervaes and William Demetree also filed a certificate of incumbency and stock ownership which is also alleged to have been false. The principal issue concerns the involvement of John Fountain in the affairs of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. Fountain is a convicted felon who was adjudicated guilty of bookmaking in the Jacksonville Federal District Court in October, 1972. The principal parties to this matter, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick knew from the outset that John Fountain was a convicted felon ineligible for licensing in this state under either the pari- mutuel or beverage laws. John Fountain conceived the idea of acquiring Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc., a money-losing harness racing facility, and obtaining necessary legislation to convert the facility to greyhound racing. Fountain first brought this idea to his long-term friends and business associates, Jack and William Demetree, in the mid to late 1970's. Fountain also initiated the involvement of another longtime friend, Paul Dervaes, as President of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. When the enterprise was short of cash in late 1978 and early 1979, Fountain made successive loans of $152,000 and $169,499.82 to the corporation through Paul Dervaes for use in converting and operating Seminole Park. When the necessary legislation was passed to convert to a greyhound facility, John Fountain, for several months, worked long hours without any salary as head of the physical conversion project for the Demetrees. Fountain originated the Super 8 betting feature at Seminole Park, one of the cornerstones of the track's promotion and publicity endeavors. Fountain also, after the conversion was complete and the facility was opened for business, authorized complimentary meals and drinks at the licensed premises at Seminole Park and authorized petty cash disbursements for a wedding present for a newspaper reporter and the distribution of gasoline without charge from Seminole Greyhound Park's fuel tanks. On March 31, 1980, Paul Dervaes, who at the time held 53 percent of the outstanding stock of Seminole Greyhound Park, sent a memo to William Demetree and sought to extricate himself from a managerial position at the track on the basis that the Demetrees appeared not to be satisfied with his managerial abilities. In this memo, Dervaes identified himself as a minority stockholder of the enterprise, despite his then ownership of a majority of 53 percent of the shares of stock. Respondent has sought to explain such incongruity by candidly admitting that Dervaes was fronting for John Fountain as to 43 shares or 43 percent of the stock in Seminole Park. As this time, Ernest Drosdick, who had for years handled all legal affairs for Seminole Park as well as for William Demetree, advised Dervaes and Jack and William Demetree that the loans to Seminole from John Fountain through Paul Dervaes had to be repaid so that the involvement of Fountain could be terminated. Drosdick's advice was predicated on Fountain's felony conviction and he noted that Fountain's continued involvement in such manner would be violative of the pari-mutuel and beverage licensing laws. The corporation thereupon obtained $321,499.82 in early April of 1980, such sum being the total of the principal but not interest due on the $152,000 and $169.499.82 loans made from John Fountain to Seminole Park through Paul Dervaes. Drosdick's advice was not consistently applied, however, with regard to recalling the loans from John Fountain. The $321,499.82 was paid by check to Paul Dervaes on April 1, 1980, which Dervaes deposited in his bank account. William Demetree then asked Dervaes if $160,000 of the funds just paid him could be borrowed back from Fountain despite Drosdick's advice against such loans. The re-loan was agreeable with Fountain and on April 9, 1980, Dervaes wrote a check in the amount of $160,000 back to Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, and on April 21, repaid the remaining $161,499.82 to Fountain. The $160,000 loan was reflected in an April 9, 1980, note signed by William Demetree as Chairman of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. It was also acknowledged by William Demetree that he knew the money was coming from John Fountain. It is this loan, which was repaid as to principal only in November of 1980, that was not reflected on the personal questionnaires of each of the principal parties. At the time the April 9, 1980, $160,000 loan was made by Fountain to Seminole Park through Dervaes, all of the principal parties, Paul Dervaes, Jack and William Demetree and Ernest Drosdick, knew that John Fountain was a convicted felon and knew that his involvement through loans would be impermissible under pari-mutuel and beverage licensing statutes. It was established that the $160,000 loan was not listed on the personal questionnaires filled out in July of 1980, by each of the aforementioned individuals despite the clearly expressed directive of such questionnaire forms, which states: List the total amount and sources of money you personally are investing in the proposed operation. Also, list any persons, corporations, partnerships, banks, and mortgage companies who have or will invest or lend money in the proposed operation. Immediately prior to the applicant's signature line on the personal questionnaire form is the following statement: I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury as provided for in Florida Statute 837.06 that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge, and that no other person, persons, firm or corporation, except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made. Immediately under the signature line is a boxed-in passage entitled "WARNING" with the word "warning" capitalized and underlined and the following: Read carefully, this instrument is a sworn document. False answers could result in criminal prosecution, subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The principal parties seek to excuse their failure to include the Fountain loan on their personal questionnaires by claiming that Drosdick, who is now deceased, was unaware of the $160,000 loan, that he filled out the questionnaires for them and that they merely signed them under oath and attested to their veracity without reading them. This testimony is not credible in view of the material, self-serving omission made on these questionnaires. Therefore, Respondent's agents, who are experienced businessmen, must be held responsible for their sworn statements. The principals have also sought to excuse their conduct on the basis that any matters which transpired between John Fountain and Paul Dervaes in connection with the loan were personal matters between Dervaes and Fountain and thus immaterial to the corporation. However, this theory avoids recognizing that personal questionnaires were submitted by four individuals and not by the corporate entity. It was established that each of the four individuals had knowledge of the $160,000 loan in question and thus were required to list such loan on their personal questionnaires. It was Fountain who conceived the idea of conversion, who supplied the capital necessary to effectuate the conversion, who without salary headed the physical conversion of the facility and who after the opening of the track authorized the expenditure of funds and the giving of certain gratuities at the track. Fountain was clearly and intimately involved with the overall success of the track. Indeed, the original loans in the amount of $152,000 and $169,499.82 from Fountain called for the payment of 10 percent interest and the $160,000 loan called for the payment of 15 percent interest, none of which has ever been paid. Such interest, as of September 30, 1982, had accrued in the amount of $15;173. Dervaes acknowledged that such interest was but a "paper transaction" in that the principal parties and Fountain all knew and agreed that Fountain would not be paid until such time as the track paid Dervaes the interest. Consequently, Fountain has held with the full knowledge of all the principal parties, an impermissible pecuniary interest in the licensed facility which continues to the present time. The Certificate of Incumbency and Declaration of Stock Ownership submitted as part of the beverage license application process was likewise incorrect. It reflected Jack and William Demetree as 50 percent each owners of Seminole Park and Fairgrounds, Inc. when, in fact, the separate corporate entity Seminole Greyhound Park, was the sole stockholder of this corporation. Such document was signed by William Demetree and certified as being true and correct by Paul Dervaes under oath. William Demetree and Paul Dervaes attempt to place the blame on Drosdick for improperly preparing the document. However, they signed this document and cannot avoid responsibility for their sworn statements.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 69-255. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 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 23rd day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven A. Werber, Esquire 2000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 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 26th day of May, 1983.
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1982, the Petitioner Dania Bank, filed a request with the Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to record a lien holder's interest against alcoholic beverage license 16-15 issued to the Respondent Chula, Inc., doing business as Chalet Ole and Chula Liquors. The lien was created on July 3, 1981, and filed with the Secretary of State on August 10, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying the Petitioner Dania Bank's request to record a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 16-15. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Whitney, Vice President The Dania Bank 255 East Dania Beach Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
