Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent held beverage license number 58-01528, SRX, Series 4COP. This license was issued to licensed premises located at 100 West Washington, Orlando, Florida. This is a special restaurant license. The above license expired on September 30, 1982, and was renewed for one year. The check given to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in payment for the fees necessary to renew the license was deposited for collection by the Division and was returned dishonored for insufficient funds. The license was retrieved by the Division on November 8, 1982, and because the fee has not been paid the license remains in the possession of the Division. At the time the Respondent failed to make good on the check or to otherwise pay the renewal fee, there were charges pending against the Respondent's license. Respondent had been notified of pending charges of violation of the beverage laws prior to September 30, 1982. On June 10, 1982, Beverage Officer Maria Lynn Scruggs visited the Respondent's licensed premises to conduct a routine special restaurant license inspection. Upon arriving at the licensed premises, Officer Scruggs requested the liquor and food invoices. One of the employees stated that there were no such invoices on the licensed premises. Walter Brown, vice-president of the Respondent corporation, stated that the Invoices were at the accountant's office. These invoices are required to be kept on the licensed premises for a period of 3 years and no permission had been obtained by Respondent to remove the invoices from the licensed premises. During this routine inspection, Officer Scruggs was assisted by Beverage Officers Ken Rigsby and Ron Westcoat. After being unable to review invoices the three officers counted the chairs in the licensed premises and inspected the kitchen area. There was a total of 154 chairs on the licensed premises. In the kitchen, there was found to be an approximately one pound container of frozen fish, ten #10 cans of pork and beans, ten to twelve heads of lettuce, one 1 pound bag of french fries, approximately ten pounds of cooked chicken, and approximately four pounds of cooked pork ribs. The cook, Mr. John Burk, showed Officer Scruggs an invoice for the following items which had been ordered: roast beef, American cheese, two cucumbers, mayonnaise, and two hams. There was a salad bar set up near the bar with items such as onions, mushrooms, and bell peppers. There was less than a cup of each item. An inspection of the silver and plates revealed that there were 113 plates, 24 coffee cups, and 25 water glasses. There was adequate silver as required under the beverage rules. At the time of this inspection, the licensed premises was not open for business. The liquor on premises could not be inventoried because the liquor cabinet was locked. This inspection took place from approximately 10:30 p.m. to 12:00 or 12:30 p.m. Shortly after the June 10, 1983, inspection, the specific date being unknown, Officer Scruggs returned to Respondent's license premises to complete the inspection. Upon inspecting the liquor inventory, Officer Scruggs found that most of the bottles had ABC Liquor Stamps reflecting that the bottles of liquor had been purchased from another retailer. The Respondent at this time was on a "no sale" list which prohibited the licensee from purchasing alcoholic beverages from another retailer or wholesaler while on that list. Licensees who appear on the "no sale" list are placed there because of failure to clear a delinquent account within the specified time. The Respondent had been on the "no sale" list since October 14, 1981, and had been informed by letter on October 14, 1981, that it had been placed on the "no sale" list. The liquor which was inventoried by Officer Scruggs had recently been purchased from either ABC Liquors or Liquor World. On this second visit, Officer Scruggs was able to review the Respondent's invoices for the period July 1981, through June 1982. These invoices revealed total sales of $193,566.99 during that period. Of that total, liquor sales represented $145,639.55 and food sales totaled $47,927.44. During the period July 1981 through June 1982, food sales accounted for 25 percent of Respondent's gross sales while alcoholic beverages accounted for 75 percent of its gross sales. The invoices as kept by the Respondent were not separated as required by the beverage rules and had to be separated prior to arriving at the above totals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's beverage license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Cooper 4627 Parma Court Orlando, Florida 32811 MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1983. Mr. Jack Wallace Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Post Office Box 17735 Orlando, Florida 32860
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated record described above, I make the following relevant findings of fact: The Petitioner currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 11-74 SRX, series 4-COP. The currently licensed premises include all of the rooms within Petitioner's clubhouse. On or about September 14, 1984, the Petitioner filed an application in which it requested that its licensed premises be extended to include all of the golf course which is adjacent to the clubhouse. The Petitioner's golf course consists of approximately 262 acres. The Petitioner is the owner of and has exclusive possession and control over all of the premises it seeks to have included in its license. The area Petitioner seeks to have included in its license includes other buildings in addition to the clubhouse building. The Petitioner does not hold a golf club license. The Petitioner does not by its application propose to have more than three separate rooms or enclosures in which permanent bars or counters will be located. A licensee is required to designate the licensed premises in a sketch included in or attached to the application for license so that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco can determine the area over which they have regulatory authority. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has, on some occasions, granted applications for series 4-COP special restaurant licenses which included in the sketch of the licensed premises an uncovered patio area immediately adjacent to the covered portion of the restaurant building, which patio areas were used by the restaurant as an area for service of food and beverages. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages has not presented any reason for denying the Petitioner's application other than the opinion that the existing statutory provisions do not authorize the extension sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license was issued pursuant to a special act of the Legislature. Chapter 70-574, Laws of Florida. Following receipt of notice that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco proposed to deny its application, the Petitioner filed a timely request for formal proceedings.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application to extend the area of its licensed premises. DONE and ORDERED this 25 day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of June, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Andrews, Esquire P.O. Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Howard M. Rasmussen Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact George Thayer is the holder of a special alcoholic beverage license, number 74-0643SR-4COP, for the premises known as George's Place at 832 South Martin Luther King Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida. He has held that license since 1965. DABT continues to assert that he has held that license since 1955, but there is not one shred of evidence to support that assertion. Both Joseph Ogonowski, a DABT investigator, and Mr. Thayer testified that the license in question was issued on July 23, 1965. Thayer's license was issued under a special provision for restaurants which no longer exists. The SR class of license required that certain conditions be met. In applying for and qualifying for the license in question, Mr. Thayer signed an affidavit attesting that he would comply with all the conditions applicable to the SR special license. Specifically, in that affidavit, Mr. Thayer attested that: . . . said licensed premises are to be operated primarily as a restaurant and contains all necessary equipment and supplies for serving full course meals regularly, has accommodations for serving @200 or more patrons at tables and occupies 4,000 square feet or more floor space under a permanent roof. Further, that if the license applied for is approved and a Special License is issued, the premises shall be operated as a bonafide restaurant and that no alcoholic beverages will be served or sold when the restaurant is not open for business. On March 13, 1990, Joseph Ogonowski, a law enforcement investigator with 30 years' experience at DABT, conducted an inspection of George's Place at approximately 2:00 o'clock P.M. Mrs. Thayer was tending bar when Ogonowski arrived. There were several patrons drinking what appeared to be alcoholic beverages at the bar and in the pool hall. There was no food being prepared or served. The kitchen, which was accessible only from behind the bar, was apparently closed. There was no appearance that any food was in or had been recently prepared in the kitchen. There was a separate part of the premises, called the disco room, which was not lit or air conditioned and was locked behind a metal gate. The disco room contained 134 chairs at tables. The bar contained enough tables and chairs for six or eight people to be served at tables. There was no menu posted or offered. There was not enough china and silverware to serve 200 people. There was some plastic tableware. DABT's apparent policy of not counting plastic tableware is not a rule and must therefore be explicated at hearing. No such evidence was presented in this case. No proof that the beverages being served were alcoholic beverages was presented by DABT. Mr. Ogonowski issued a warning notice citing inadequate seats and tables, inadequate square footage open to the public, and the need for additional china and silverware. Notice was given that a reinspection would occur in ten days. Mr. Ogonowski reinspected the premises on March 29, 1990. Nothing had changed. The kitchen and disco room were closed and no food was being served on the premises. Mr. Ogonowski issued a Final warning notice again citing the lack of seats, tables, china, and silverware. A reinspection was again scheduled. On April 13, 1990, Ogonowski again reinspected the premises at about 10:00 o'clock A.M. A Bill of Fare was posted showing full course meals being served. There were still inadequate seats at tables and china and silverware. No food was being served, but it was early in the day. Patrons were drinking what appeared to be alcoholic beverages at the bar and in the pool hall, but the disco room was locked. Again no evidence that the beverages were alcoholic was presented by DABT. Another Final warning notice was issued citing the inadequate seats, tables, china, and silverware. This Final warning notice reminded Mr. Thayer that he was required to have the facilities, china, and silverware to serve full course meals to 200 patrons or else he must discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Thayer was given ten working days to comply or else charges would be filed against his license. On June 22, 1990, Mr. Ogonowski returned in the morning for one last inspection of George's Place. Mr. Thayer was not there, but Leroy Reed was tending bar. The Bill of Fare was not posted. The pool hall was open, but the disco room was locked. Mr. Reed was eating something from a bowl. According to Mr. Reed, it was some leftovers that he had scraped from the bottom of a pot. Mr. Ogonowski ordered some of what Mr. Reed was eating, but was told it was all gone and food had not been cooked yet that day. Mr. Ogonowski ordered a sandwich not regularly available on the premises and was told that it was not available. He than asked to purchase a beer to go and was sold a can of beer. Mr. Ogonowski returned to talk to Mr. Thayer later that same day. At that time, Mr. Thayer told Mr. Ogonowski that the necessary china and silverware was on the premises, but that there were inadequate seats at tables. Based on this failure to comply with the previous warnings, a Notice to Show Cause was issued. Mr. Ogonowski did not inspect to see if the china and silverware was actually on the premises or if full course meals were available. According to Mrs. Thayer, the china and silverware was purchased in July, after the last inspection. Further, she acknowledged that the necessary seats at tables were not on the premises until September. Mr. and Mrs. Thayer live above George's Place and derive all of their support from the operation of George's Place. They have done so for more that 25 years. Until these events, they had not received any citations for more than 15 years. Mr. Ogonowski testified that DABT has a policy regarding penalties for violations of special restaurant licenses and he produced a copy of a page from his policy and procedure manual. These penalty guidelines have not been enacted as rules. Mr. Ogonowski did not develop the policy and did not offer any testimony to prove up or explicate the incipient policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that alcoholic beverage license 74-00643SR-4COP, issued to George Thayer, t/a George's Place, be suspended until the licensee demonstrates the ability and intention to operate the premises as a bona fide restaurant meeting all the criteria of the license, the statutes, and the rules. If the licensee is unable to make the necessary demonstration within six months, the license should be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5777 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of FactSubmitted by Petitioner, DABT Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1) and 2-6(4-8). Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of FactSubmitted by Respondent, George Thayer Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 10(8); and 14(11). Proposed findings of fact 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 3 and 7 are irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 12 is unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Haug Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Thomas S. Hart Attorney at Law Cobb Cole & Bell 150 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, FL 32115-2491 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
The Issue Whether or not the, Respondent, Buenaventura Lakes Country Club, Inc., may be issued Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2, for use at 301 Buenaventura Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner and Respondent stipulated and agreed to the underlying facts which they deemed to have necessary application in considering the question of the propriety of the Respondent issuing the Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2 to the Petitioner for use at 301 Buenaventura Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida. Notwithstanding the lack of dispute in facts surrounding this issue, the Respondent and Petitioner have requested the undersigned to examine those facts and to offer conclusions of law on the dispute. In the course of the presentation, it was agreed that Mr. Norman J. Smith, attorney for the Petitioner, would be allowed to set forth the factual stipulation for the record. Mr. Smith indicated that the official description of the license was, Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2. It was stated that the Petitioner is now a qualified motel and restaurant as set forth in Florida Statute, 561.20, which describes those establishments which would qualify for a "special" beverage license. It was further indicated that when the license in question was issued originally it was not issued to such a qualified hotel, motel or restaurant as set forth in Florida Statute, 561.20, which established the requirements for issuance of a "special" beverage license, and that when the subject license was transferred to the present location, that the motel and restaurant, at the present location, was not such a qualified hotel, motel or restaurant in accordance with Florida Statute, 561.20, which established those requirements for issuance of a "special" beverage license. However, as of October 21, 1975, and as of the application date for license transfer, filed by the Petitioner, by improvements and physical changes to the edifice, (location where the license currently is housed), would meet the definitional requirements of Florida Statute, 561.20, which sets forth the qualifications for "special" beverage licenses to be issued to a hotel, motel or restaurant. This qualification referred to as of October 21, 1975, and as of the date of application, applies to the section on hotels/motels and restaurants. That is to say the establishment would qualify under the standards for a hotel/motel or under the standards for a restaurant. It was further established that the application which was filed by the Petitioner was duly filed with the Division of Beverage upon form, DBR-704L, which is the application for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license in this type request. Mr. Smith stated that the Petitioner understood that the letter of August 21, 1975, from the Director of the Division of Beverage, addressed to the Petitioner, stated the only basis for denying the application which had been filed by the Petitioner, and Mr. Hatch, attorney for the Respondent, agreed that there were no other grounds for disapproving the license application other than the one established in the letter from Mr. C. A. Nuzum, Director of the Division of Beverage. It was more specifically developed that the language which was relied upon to deny the application was that language set forth in Florida Statute, 561.20(2)(a)(3), "... However, any license heretofore issued to any such hotel, motel, motor court, or restaurant or hereafter issued to any such hotel, motel, or motor court [including a condominium accommodation] under the general law shall not be moved to a new location, such license being valid only on the premises of such hotel, motel, motor court, or restaurant." Mr. Hatch, in behalf of the Respondent, agreed to the accuracy of the depiction of the stipulation as stated for the record by Mr. Smith. The parties through their respective attorneys then offered oral argument on the law as it relates to the Petitioner's request for issuance of a license at the aforementioned location. Additionally, Mr. Bishop, a licensing supervisor with the Division of Beverage, was called to testify concerning his interpretation of the operation of Florida Statute, 561 as it pertains to license applications, moves, and transfers. One further item was offered in the way of a stipulation, and that is an agreement on the part of Mr. Smith, for the Petitioner, to allow examination of two memoranda offered by the Respondent as part of its argument. Mr. Smith indicated that he had a copy of the memoranda and that he had no objection to the use of that memoranda in the way of argument in behalf of the Respondent. Upon that representation the undersigned was provided with a copy of the Respondent's memoranda and has considered the same in addressing the legal issue.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application for transfer as filed by the Respondent, Buenaventura Lakes Country Club, Inc., to transfer Division of Beverage, license number 7-COP-59-2 from its present location to 301 Buenaventura Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida, be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Norman J. Smith, Esquire Brinson and Smith, P. A. Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed August 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about June 29, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course wools had been discontinued. Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's holds a 4 COP special restaurant beverage license and the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction over the parties and the violations alleged. On or about 12:30 a.m. June 29, 1977 beverage agents Meek and Shepherd entered Pete and Lenny's, seated themselves at the bar and ordered drinks. After finishing their drink they ordered a second drink and inquired of the bartender, Richard Bohan, if they could get food. He replied that they could get sandwiches at the Banana Boat next door. Further questioning by the agents elicited responses that Respondent had stopped serving and the cook had been transferred next door, that the Banana Boat served sandwiches until 1:30 a.m., that Respondent usually offered New York strip steaks but "not this late", and that the Banana Boat and Pete and Lenny's were owned by the same corporation. After identifying themselves as beverage agents and asking for the manager, Meek and Shepherd inspected the kitchen and restaurant area. Inspection of the kitchen revealed the only cooking equipment to be a microwave oven, empty icebox at 420 F, no evidence that food had been prepared in the kitchen for several days, insufficient silver to serve 200 diners simultaneously as required by regulations for special restaurant licenses, and musicians instrument cases occupying a substantial portion of the kitchen floor. Unopened boxes of silver was produced from the storeroom in sufficient quantity to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations. Respondent's witnesses testified that the icebox had been inoperative for a day or two and food had been removed to next door, but that they were not refusing to serve full course meals. The only meal offered appears to have been the New York strip steak either cooked next door or in the microwave oven. No facilities were available in the kitchen with which to prepare vegetables and these witnesses testified potato salad was served as the vegetable. Pete and Lenny's is a night club where the music is loud and continuous. When the live band is on break recorded music is provided. On the evening of the inspection by beverage officers Meek and Shepherd little, if any, food had been served in Pete and Lenny's.
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
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., and its directive that the square footage making up the licensed premises of a special restaurant (SRX) license be “contiguous,” constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, and, if so, whether Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Adjudication should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of facts are determined: The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Respondent) is the state agency responsible for adopting the existing rule which is the subject of this proceeding. Under the provisions of Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is charged with the supervision and enforcement of all alcoholic beverages manufactured, packaged, distributed and sold within the state under the Beverage Law. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. Petitioner, Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC, d/b/a Del Tura Pub and Restaurant is the owner/operator of a restaurant located in North Fort Myers, Florida. It is seeking issuance of a special restaurant license (SRX) pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, from the Division. Therefore, Petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged rule. Petitioner operates a restaurant on a leased parcel of property consisting of two buildings with a dedicated pathway between the two buildings. Petitioner’s restaurant premises consist of two buildings which contain a minimum of 2,500 square feet in the aggregate of service area. Petitioner’s restaurant facility is equipped to serve 150 patrons full course meals at tables at one time. The sole reason asserted by Respondent for denial of Petitioner’s application is the alleged noncompliance with the “contiguous” requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. The provision of general law, applicable to Petitioner, which sets forth the specific criteria for an SRX license, is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. To these statutory criteria, Respondent has, by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., added an additional criteria: “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single establishment.” Respondent has interpreted the provision to mean that the buildings containing the square footage must physically touch. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141 reflects that the sole law implemented is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. Susan Doherty is the chief of Respondent’s Bureau of Licensing, whose duties include determining “if a license will be issued based upon the qualifications of the applicant [and] whether the premises meets all requirements based on the type of license applied for.” Ms. Doherty, whose deposition was taken on May 12, 2009, testified in pertinent part: Q. All right. If I can direct your attention to Subsection (2)(a)(2) of Rule 61A-3.0141, it says, “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single licensed restaurant establishment.” What does “contiguous” mean? A. Touching, actually connected, touching. * * * Q. Do you see anything in the statute that prohibits a licensee from qualifying if the square footage is in two buildings that the applicant leases and they’re connected by a pathway which the applicant leases? Do you see anything in the statute that precludes that? A. In the statute, no. Q. Do you see anything in the rule that precludes that? A. In my opinion, Section (2)(a)(2), the contiguous would. Deposition of S. Doherty, pp. 15 and 18. Chief Doherty conceded, however, that she could not point to any provision of the relevant statute that imposes a “contiguous” requirement regarding the square footage. Chief Doherty further noted that for special licenses issued for hotels pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, she was aware that there were numerous non-contiguous buildings licensed pursuant to such section. The deposition of Respondent’s agency representative, Major Carol Owsiany, was taken on May 13, 2009. Major Owsiany testified: Q. . . . Isn’t it correct that there’s 2,500 square feet of service area located in the two buildings that are currently the subject of the [Petitioner’s] temporary SRX license? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you point to me any provision of Section 561.20(2)(1)(4) that precludes the petitioner from having the requisite square footage in two buildings? A. One second, sir. Not in the statute, but I can in the rule. Deposition of C. Owsiany, p. 8. For purposes of this rule challenge case, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence (including Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Club 99, Inc., is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 16- 1053-SRX, series 4-COP, doing business at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida, as a bar and restaurant named Shangri-La. On August 7, 1984, the Plantation Police Department began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises known as Club 99, Inc. d/b/a Shangri-La, holding license number 16-1053-SRX, series 4-COP, located at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida. On this date Detective Dan Anderson entered the licensed premises undercover and was introduced to a white male bartender identified as Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation with Perkins regarding a narcotic known as MDA. Perkins explained that MDA was a mixture of heroin and speed and further stated that he could obtain MDA for Anderson at a price of $70.00 a gram or $10.00 a "hit." Detective Anderson also engaged in conversation about MDA with Scott Kiehl, the assistant manager at the licensed premises. Later that same evening Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation about cocaine with a white male bartender on the licensed premises known as "Paul" or "Miss Kitty." None of the employees with whom Detective Anderson discussed MDA or cocaine appeared to be alarmed or concerned about the discussion. On August 10, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and engaged in a conversation with a white male bartender identified as Richard Christian. Detective Anderson asked if he could buy a half gram of cocaine and Richard Christian answered in the affirmative stating that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. Detective Anderson gave $40.00 in U.S. currency to Christian and Christian covered the money with a cocktail napkin. Christian took the money and shortly thereafter he placed a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance under a cocktail napkin and pushed it across the bar towards Detective Anderson. At this same time, Christian said, "It is underneath." After looking under the napkin, Anderson took the cocktail napkin and the small plastic bag and placed them in his left front pants pocket. On August 17, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:00 P.M. 2/ On this occasion he met with a white male bartender named Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins had obtained any MDA for him and Perkins answered in the negative. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins could get him any cocaine. Perkins answered in the negative but pointed out a waiter named Everett Campbell and suggested that Anderson ask Campbell about cocaine. Detective Anderson then approached the waiter identified as Everett Campbell and asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative and said the price would be $35.00. Anderson agreed to the price. Later that evening Campbell approached Anderson and said that the person he gets the cocaine from was not in the bar and that, therefore, he could not deliver any cocaine to Detective Anderson. On August 18, 1984, at approximately 11:35 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell. This time Campbell told Anderson that he would be able to obtain some cocaine. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on August 19, 1984, Detective Anderson gave Campbell $40.00 in U.S. currency. Campbell took the money and walked to an unknown location off the premises and returned in about five minutes. Campbell then handed Detective Anderson a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Nothing was wrapped around the plastic bag. Detective Anderson held up the plastic bag to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. The other bartenders and a large number of patrons were nearby and could have seen what was happening. On August 21, 1984, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises. Anderson struck up a conversation with a white male patron identified as Dion Burl. Detective Anderson asked Burl if he could obtain some cocaine for Anderson. Burl replied in the affirmative and stated that it would cost $40.00 for one half gram. Anderson placed a cocktail napkin over two $20.00 bills and handed them to Burl. Burl took the money and walked to an unknown location. At approximately 11:30 P.M., Burl returned. He handed Detective Anderson a white cocktail napkin and a small clear plastic bag that contained a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson took the substance and placed it in his pants pocket. On August 23, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell at approximately 11:00 P.M. Campbell was working as a waiter that night. Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could obtain a half gram of cocaine for Anderson. Campbell answered in the affirmative and said it would cost $40.00. Detective Anderson gave Campbell the money and a while later Campbell handed him a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's inside." Inside the magazine Detective Anderson found a small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson held the plastic bag up to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. On August 24, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. At approximately the same time Investigator Oliva entered in an undercover capacity as back up. Upon entering the premises Detective Anderson met with white male bartender Richard Christian and both engaged in general conversation. After a short period of time Detective Anderson asked Christian if he had any cocaine. Christian stated that be did not have any right now but for Anderson to go ahead and give Christian $35.00, and that he would have it later. Anderson complied with Christian's request and gave Christian $35.00 U.S. currency. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva seated themselves at a table in the dining area of the licensed premises, where they were greeted by Everett Campbell. Shortly thereafter Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson some cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Anderson folded two $20.00 bills, placed them under a napkin, and gave them to Campbell. Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva then saw Campbell go into the kitchen area several times. About fifteen or twenty minutes later, Campbell approached the table where Anderson and Oliva were seated and placed a folded cocktail napkin in front of Detective Anderson and said, "It's in there." Anderson unfolded the napkin and found that it contained a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson removed the plastic bag from the napkin and inspected the plastic bag by holding it up to eye level for a few seconds. Detective Anderson saw other patrons looking at him when he raised the plastic bag to eve level. After inspecting the plastic bag, Anderson put it in his pocket. At approximately midnight of the evening of August 24-25, 1984, Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva left the restaurant portion of the licensed premises and proceeded to the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, which is another lounge. After a short period of time, Anderson and Oliva were greeted by a waiter identified as Adam Burnett. Anderson and Oliva negotiated with Burnett for the purchase of cocaine. In approximately five minutes Burnett returned to the table where the officers were seated and stated that he could obtain a better quality of cocaine for $40.00 in U.S. currency for one half gram. At this time Investigator Oliva stated that he would take the better quality of cocaine and gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency. A few minutes later Investigator Oliva followed Burnett into the mens' restroom. Once inside the mens' room, Burnett handed Oliva a white cocktail napkin. Oliva took the napkin and unwrapped it. Inside was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva held the plastic bag up to eye level to view its contents and discussed with Burnett the fact that the white powdery substance had a lot of "rocks" in it. Oliva then stated to Burnett that he was not going to do the cocaine in the bathroom because he did not trust anyone. Burnett's reply was, "It's okay. Everyone does it in here anyway." Oliva and Burnett then left the restroom. A few minutes later that same evening, an unknown white male employee who had been previously working at a bar located in the downstairs portion of the premises approached Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva and stated to Anderson, "Richard wants to see you downstairs". Anderson and Oliva proceeded downstairs to the bar located by the kitchen entrance. There Detective Anderson met with bartender Richard Christian, who told Anderson to reach into his shirt pocket. Anderson reached in Christian's shirt pocket and pulled out a folded napkin, and a small clear plastic bag which contained a white powdery substance. When Detective Anderson started to open the cocktail napkin, Christian put his hands out to close Anderson's hands in an effort to keep other people from seeing the bag. On August 29, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At approximately 10:00 P.M., Detective Anderson was introduced to a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown. Anderson and Brown engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Brown if he could get a half gram of cocaine. Brown stated that be should be able to obtain one and that he would check around and get back to Detective Anderson. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Brown approached Detective Anderson and stated that he had checked around, but was unable to obtain any cocaine. On the same date, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson met with waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get him a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied by stating, "Wait 'til Gus gets here." Burnett further stated that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. At approximately 12:10 A.M., on August 30, 1984, Anderson handed Burnett two $20.00 bills. About twenty minutes later, Burnett handed Anderson a folded napkin. Anderson unfolded the napkin and found a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson then placed the clear plastic bag in his left front pocket. On the evening of August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. Investigator Oliva and Detective Vadnal entered the premises at about the same time in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl. Anderson asked Burl if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burl replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Burl two folded $20.00 bills, which were wrapped in a cocktail napkin. Burl took the money and left. At approximately 11:50 P.M., Burl returned to the upstairs portion of the premises and sat at a table with Detective Anderson. At this time Burl handed Anderson a folded cocktail napkin and inside the folded napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. On that same evening, August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown who was working at the upstairs portion of the licensed premises. Anderson and Brown engaged in a conversation while standing approximately three feet from Investigator Oliva. Anderson asked Brown if Brown could obtain a half gram of cocaine. Brown replied by stating, "It will be about twenty minutes." Detective Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Brown and told Brown that he would be in the downstairs portion of the licensed premises. At approximately 12:10 A.M, on August 31, 1984, Detective Anderson, while standing at the downstairs portion of the licensed premises was approached by Brown, who handed Anderson a folded white cocktail napkin which contained a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson inspected the plastic bag and then placed the napkin and its contents in his right rear pants pocket. On or about August 31, 1984, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At about the same time Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as backup. Shortly after midnight (in the early morning minutes of September 1, 1984) Detective Anderson met with white male waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in a general conversation. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Detective Anderson gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency by laying two $20.00 bills on a cocktail tray Burnett was carrying. Burnett walked away from Detective Anderson to an unknown portion of the licensed premises. A few minutes later Burnett returned to where Detective Anderson was standing and handed Anderson a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's in the magazine." Detective Anderson, who was standing near the dance floor of the licensed premises, took the magazine and flipped through its pages, at which time a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance fell to the floor. Several patrons standing in the vicinity of Anderson saw the clear plastic bag fall to the floor and laughed at Anderson's clumsiness. Detective Anderson then picked up the clear plastic bag and held it up to eye level to inspect it. He then placed it in his pocket. On the evening of September 5, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl and asked Burl if he could purchase a half gram of cocaine. After some conversation, Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Burl. Detective Anderson then told Burl that he would be sitting on a speaker near the west end of the dance floor and that Burl could deliver the cocaine to him there. At approximately 10:45 P.M., Burl approached Detective Anderson, who was seated on a speaker by the dance floor, and sat next to Anderson. Burl then handed a folded cocktail napkin to Detective Anderson. Inside the cocktail napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson examined the plastic bag and then placed it in his pocket. After concluding the cocaine purchase of September 5, 1984, at the licensed premises, Detective Anderson remained on the licensed premises and during the early morning hours of September 6, 1984, he met with a white male waiter previously identified as Adam Burnett. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett stated that "Gus," referring to the supplier, was not yet at the bar, but that he should be able to obtain some later. A few minutes later, Burnett approached Anderson and stated that Gus was present and Anderson handed Burnett two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Anderson then stated to Burnett that he would be in the downstairs portion of the premises. A short while later Burnett approached Anderson and handed Anderson what appeared to be a mixed drink with a napkin wrapped around the glass. As he handed the glass to Anderson, Burnett said, "It's just water, but look in the napkin." Anderson set the drink down and unfolded the napkin to expose a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson placed the plastic bag in his pocket. At approximately 12:30 A.M. that same evening (prior to purchasing the cocaine from Burnett), Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell and engaged in a general conversation with Campbell. Shortly thereafter Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Anderson gave Campbell two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Approximately two minutes later Campbell returned from an unknown location in the restaurant area of the licensed premises and handed Anderson a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson took the plastic bag and held it up to inspect it. The bartender at bar number two could have seen Anderson inspecting the plastic bag. Anderson then placed the plastic bag in his pocket. On the evening of September 10, 1984, Detectives Anderson and Vadnal and Investigator Oliva returned to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Anderson engaged in a brief conversation with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell, who was not working on this date. Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Campbell a $50.00 bill, which Campbell took. Campbell took the $50.00 bill to a bartender, received change for it, and gave Anderson $10.00. Campbell then went out the front door. At approximately 1:00 A.M. on September 11, 1984, Campbell reentered the licensed premises and met with Detective Anderson who was standing next to Investigator Oliva. At this time Campbell handed Anderson a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. This transaction was observed by an on-duty white male bartender identified only as "Don" and by a white male patron who was standing on the opposite side of Anderson. Detective Anderson took the clear plastic bag and placed it on the bar counter where it remained for two or three minutes in plain view of the bartender. Then Anderson took the plastic bag and attempted to place it in his pants pocket at which time the small plastic bag containing the white powdery substance fell to the floor where Detective Vadnal, Investigator Oliva, and the white male patron previously mentioned observed the same. Detective Anderson retrieved the clear plastic bag from the floor and placed it in his pants pocket. At all times material to this case, the following were employees on the licensed premises. Malcolm Perkins, Richard Christian, Everett Campbell, Adam Burnett, Tony Brown and a bartender identified only as "Don." Each and every one of the clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance which were sold to Detective Anderson and to Investigator Oliva on the licensed premises during August and September of 1984, were properly examined by a forensic chemist. The contents of each and every one of those clear plastic bags was found to contain cocaine. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 5-week period from August 7, 1984, through September 11, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 8/07/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson he could obtain MDA. 8/07/84 Assistant Manager Scott Kiehl and employee "Paul/Miss Kitty" discussed drugs with Detective Anderson without alarm or concern. 8/10/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson that employee Everett Campbell could obtain cocaine for Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Everett Campbell agreed to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/19/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/21/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/23/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/24/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Investigator Oliva. 8/29/84 Employee Tony Brown offered to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/31/84 Employee Tony Brown sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/01/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/05/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/11/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. All of the events summarized immediately above took place on the licensed premises during business hours when other employees and patrons were also present on the licensed premises. With the one exception which occurred on August 25, 1984, when Richard Christian reached out to close Detective Anderson's hands so that Anderson would not display a plastic bag containing cocaine, the employees at the licensed premises did not express any concern about any of the drug transactions and did not take any action to prevent or discourage them. Richard DeSanto is the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Club 99, Inc., the licensee in this case. Richard DeSanto is a self-employed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar. He has been a practicing attorney for six years and maintains an active trial practice. DeSanto does not devote very much time to the management of the licensed premises. The day-to-day management is conducted by a manager and an assistant manager, both hired by DeSanto. The manager is Tommy Engelbrecht and the assistant manager is Scotty Kiehl. DeSanto relies on Engelbrecht to relay DeSanto's instructions about the operation of the licensed premises to the other employees and also relies on Engelbrecht to report back to him regarding any problems in the operation of the licensed premises. Engelbrecht does the hiring and firing at the licensed premises and many of the employees on the licensed premises would not even recognize DeSanto. DeSanto visits the licensed premises about twice a month on a deliberately irregular schedule. Some of his visits are as brief as a few minutes; others are as long as several hours. The primary purpose of his visits is to attend to such things as reviewing business records and signing the payroll. DeSanto has established as policies that intoxicated or disorderly patrons should not be permitted to enter the licensed premises and that patrons who become disorderly once they are inside the licensed premises should be ejected. It is also a policy of the club that if the employees become aware of any drug activity on the licensed premises they are supposed to report the incident to the manager or assistant manager, and the manager or assistant manager is supposed to eject whoever is involved in the drug activity. On three or four occasions during the past year or so patrons have been ejected for drug activities on the licensed premises. DeSanto has discussed drug problems and their prevention with Engelbrecht. All new employees are told about the drug policy at the licensed premises when they are first hired. Engelbrecht has also held a few employee meetings at which he reminded employees of the drug policy. The drug policy established by DeSanto appears to include a policy of firing any employee who is caught with drugs on the premises. During the past year three waiters have been fired on the spot for drug use. In the past year the manager has also been told of three or four instances of drug dealing on the licensed premises. 3/ There are no written personnel rules and regulations. Thus, all of DeSanto's policies are communicated orally to Engelbrecht and are then communicated orally by Engelbrecht to the employees. The entire management of the licensed premises, including management practices concerning hiring of personnel, appear to be very informal. Further, the personnel policies regarding drug activities on the licensed premises are either ineffectively communicated or ineffectively enforced. For example, none of the drug transactions engaged in by Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva were reported to the manager or assistant manager, and no efforts were made to eject Anderson or Oliva for engaging in drug transactions or attempting to engage in drug transactions, even though some of their transactions were observed by employees who were not involved in the transactions. Further, at least one employee (Richard Christian) knew that a patron named Gus was regularly dealing in cocaine on the licensed premises, but no action was taken to eject Gus. 4/ Yet another example of the informality of the licensee's personnel practices is that even though Englebrecht had recently hired a bartender named "Don" and had supposedly carefully checked with Don's references, Englebrecht could not remember Don's last name. When alcoholic beverage licenses were renewed in March of 1983, the DABT sent information to all licensees advising them that the DABT was willing to provide them with suggestions for controlling drug activity on the licensed premises. DeSanto did not take advantage of this opportunity to obtain suggestions from DABT because he did not think he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. In making the foregoing findings of fact I have given careful consideration to the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' post- hearing submissions to the Hearing Officer. To the extent that findings of fact proposed by either party are not incorporated in the foregoing findings of fact, the proposed findings have been specifically rejected because they were not supported by competent substantial evidence, because they were contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, because they involve incidental details which were not essential to the resolution of this case, or because they were irrelevant or immaterial.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-1053-SRX, Series 4-COP, issued to Club 99, Inc., trading as Shangri-La. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7A-3.15(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that its special license be suspended for three days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Grapevine Restaurant No. One, Inc. d/b/a Grapevine Restaurant 4320 14th Street West Bradenton, Florida Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, doing business as The Knight Out, was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 72-79, series 1-COP. Prior to the hearing . . . in this cause, Respondent had turned in his license to the Petitioner. To the rear of the licensed premises, Respondent operated a bottle club known as The Knight Club. The Knight Club is attached to and shares restroom facilities with The Knight Out. On March 27, 1975, Respondent was served with a "Notice to show cause why beverage license should not have civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked" on the grounds that on Sunday, January 26, 1975: his employee, Vicki Lynn Williamson, at approximately 2:00 am., did sell at the licensed premises, an alcoholic beverage, a can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer L. E. Williams during the time that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394 enacted pursuant to F.S. s. 562.14; at approximately 4:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 5:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 6:05 a.m., he refused to admit to the licensed premises beverage officer Jack Garrett, while in the performance of his official duties, contrary to F.S. s. 562.41; and at approximately 6:05 a.m., he had in his possession, custody and control, at the licensed premises a partially full 4/5 quart of Smirnoff Vodka, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold by him, in violation of F.S. s. 562.02. Beverage officer L. E. Williams went to The Knight Out the weekend of January 24, 1975, in order to conduct an undercover investigation of the licensed premises. He observed the Respondent, between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on January 24th, remove four cases of beer from The Knight Out and place them into a small room in The Knight Club portion of the premises. At about 1:00 a.m. on January 25th, Williams paid a $2.00 cover charge, entered The Knight Club and remained there until 6:00 a.m. On Saturday night, January 25th, beverage officer Williams again went to The Knight Out and, at about 11:30 p.m., again observed Respondent moving five cases of beer from The Knight Out to the rear portion, The Knight Club. Williams entered The Knight Club during the early hours of January 26, 1975, carrying a can of beer with him. He left at approximately 2:30 a.m., met with other beverage agents, and returned to The Knight Club at about 3:45 a.m., paying the cover charge of $2.00. At 4:00 a.m. and again at 5:00 a.m. on January 26, 1975, Williams purchased from Respondent Poppell cans of Budweiser beer at seventy-five cents per can. Williams retained control of the two beer cans and at about 6:30 a.m. he tagged them as evidence. They were admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibits 4 and 5. At approximately 6:05 a.m. on January 26, 1975, beverage officer Jack Garrett, along with several other law enforcement agents, knocked on the front door of The Knight Club seeking entrance thereto. Respondent told Garrett to get in front of the peephole on the door so that he could see who was there. Garrett, who had known Respondent for some fifteen years, testified that he showed his identification card to Respondent through the peephole, whereupon Respondent replied that he would not let him in. Beverage officer T. A. Hicks, present with Garrett at the time, confirmed these events. Respondent and two other witnesses present at the scene testified that Respondent asked the persons at the front door to identify themselves, but that no response was received. Shortly thereafter, Officer Garrett, along with other law enforcement officers, went around to the other side of The Knight Club and entered, without knocking, the ladies rest room which led to the inside of The Knight Club. Once inside, they met Respondent leaving a small room with a handful of liquor bottles. One such bottle was seized - - a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff Vodka - - and was received into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 6. Shirrell Woodalf testified that she had come to The Knight Out on the morning in question with another couple. When the other couple left, they gave her their bottle of Smirnoff Vodka. She then gave the bottle to Respondent to keep for her in his office. Woodalf identified Exhibit 6 as being the same bottle as that left with her and given to Respondent. Four witnesses who often frequented The Knight Club testified that patrons of the Club always brought their own beer or other alcoholic beverages into the Club. Respondent would cool their beer for them and keep their bottles in his office if they so desired. Respondent sometimes charged a small fee for cooling the beer and he sold setups for mixed drinks. These four witnesses never saw Respondent sell either beer or other alcoholic beverages in The Knight Club.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the notice to show cause be dismissed; Respondent be found guilty of violating F.S. ss. 562.14 and 562.41, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the notice to show cause; and Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered 26th day of May, 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. Charles Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street, Room 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P.O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347
